ERIC EJ454066: The Effect of Cognitive Instruction in the Development of Employment Interview Skills in Adolescents with Learning Disabilities.

9 Pages·1992·0.54 MB·English

by  ERIC

CanadianJournalofCounselling/ Revue Canadiennede Counseling/1992,Vol. 26:2 87
The Effect of Cognitive Instruction in the
Development of Employment Interview Skills
in Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
Ruth Anne H. Taves
Nancy L. Hutchinson
John G. Freeman
Queen's University
Abstract
A series ofsix modules, Pathways was designed to facilitate career maturity in youth with
learning disabilities. In each module, cognitive instruction was used to teach adolescents
strategiesandwhen touse thesestrategies. Oneofthe modules, SucceedingwiththeInterview,
preparesadolescentsforemploymentinterviews.Thispaperreportsonapilotstudydesigned
to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe module in teachingemploymentinterviewskillsto four
studentswithlearningdisabilities.Comparedtotwocontrolgroups,studentswhoparticipated
in the interview module showed changes on measures of behaviour, cognition, and
metacognition.
Resume
Vneseriedesixunitesd'instruction,"Pathways"etaitdestineeiifaciliterlamaturationduchoix
de carriere parmis lesjeunes en troubles d'apprentissage. Dans chaque unite, I'instruction
cognitive etait utilisee ii enseigner aux adolescent(e)s des strategies et quand utiliser ces
strategies. Vne de ces unites, Succes avec I'interview, prepare les adolescent(e)s pour des
interviews d'emploi. Cette communication fait un rapport sur une etude-pilote destinee ii
evaluerl'efficacitedecetteuniteenenseignantdeshabiletesd'interviewauxquatreetudiants
en troubles d'apprentissage. Compares aux deux groupes-contr6Ies, les etudiants qui ont
participeiicetteunitedesinterviewsontchangeenmesuredeconduite,decognition,etde
metacognition.
Thisstudyisbuiltonrecentresearch in cognitiveinstructionwithlearn
ing disabled adolescents. Research has shown that students enhance
theirlearningbybecomingawareoftheirthinkingastheyreadandsolve
problems (e.g., Hutchinson & Wong, 1992). Teachers and counsellors
can promote this awareness by teaching students effective strategies
and discussing cognitive and motivational characteristics of thinking
(Campbell & Pharand, 1991; Paris & Winograd, 1990). The purpose
ofthepresentstudywastoevaluatetheeffectivenessofcognitiveinstruc
tionin teachingemploymentinterviewskillstoadolescentswithlearning
disabilities.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKAND RELATED LITERATURE
Children and adolescents with learning disabilities often fail to access
knowledge unless theyare explicitlyprompted to use specific cognitive
strategies (Swanson, 1989).The goal ofcognitive instruction is to teach
adolescents these cognitive processes and when to use them (Pressley,
88 RuthAnne H. Taves, NancyL. Hutchinson,John G. Freeman
Symons, Snyder & Cariglia-Bull, 1989). To meet these goals of self
appraisal and self-regulation requires knowledge ofthe strategies, mon
itoringofthe situation to selectappropriate strategies, and appraisal of
one'sown executionofthesestrategies (Meichenbaum, 1986).Training
in cognitive strategies like self-questioning has substantially improved
performance in reading comprehension and mathematics problem
solving in learning disabled adolescents (Hutchinson & Wong, 1992).
Deshler and his associates have developed instructional packages to
promotethe useofcognitivestrategiesin manyacademicareas (Schum
aker, Deshler & Ellis, 1986).
Manyyouthwithlearningdisabilitieshavedemonstratedditficultiesin
thesocialdomain (Bryan, 1990).Theyalsohavedisplayedsocialmisper
ceptionsleadingtosignificantcommunicationdifficulties (Schneider&
Yoshida, 1988). Learning disabled adults surveyed by Hoffman et al.
(1987) reported social problems including talking or acting before
thinking, shyness, lack ofself-confidence, and frustration. Biller (1985,
1987) has shown thatin adolescentswith learning disabilities the devel
opmentofcareermaturityisdelayed.Theseproblemscouldbeexpected
to affectthem inan interviewand to interferewith theirabilityto obtain
employment.
In the validation of an instrument to assess occupational skills,
Mathews, Whang, and Fawcett (1980) reported that employers rated
performance in ajob interview highest of13job-related skills. In a
laterstudy, Mathews, Whang, and Fawcett (1982) found that the behav
iour ratings oflearning disabled adolescents on an employment inter
viewwere significantlylower than those ofadolescentswithoutlearning
disabilities.
Behaviourinterventions such asGettingEmploymentThrough Inter
view Training (GET IT!) (Roessler, Hinman & Lewis, 1984) have been
developedtomeettheneedforasmall-groupinterventionforadultswith
handicaps. GET-IT! wasdesigned to improve self-presentation skillsand
non-verbal behaviours in the employment interview. Participants im
provedondiscretebehavioursbutnottheoverallimpressionmadeinan
interview(Farley& Hinman,1987).Theoutcomedatademonstratedthe
limitationsofbehavioural training, and the needfor cognitive interven
tions that emphasize understanding and maximize generalization (De
shler, Alley, Warner & Schumaker, 1981). There is clearly a need for
instruction that prepares youth with learning disabilities to succeed in
employment interviews, and helps them to use feedback about their
performance to change the way they approach interviews. The present
studywasan initialinvestigationoftheeffectivenessofcognitiveinstruc
tion in small-group counselling on performance during an interview,
reflection about an interview (stimulated recall), and thinking about
how to approach an interview (metacognitive interview).
InterviewSkills 89
METHOD
Subjects
Ten students from a secondary school in a mid-sized city in eastern
Ontario participated: four in the intervention group, three as pretest
posttest controls, and three as posttest only controls. All students had
beenidentifiedaslearningdisabledundertheOntarioguidelineswhich
include a significantdiscrepancy between ability and achievement, evi
denceoflearningproblems,andexclusionofotherdisabilitesthatcould
account for the learning difficulties (Ontario Ministry of Education,
1986). The students were receiving regular assistance in a learning
disabilities resource program. The median age in the intervention and
pre-post control groups was 17; the median age in the posttest only
control groupwas 16. Three ofthe 10subjectswere females, two in the
intervention group and one in the posttest control group.
Instructor
Thefirstauthor,whowastheresourceteacher,instructedthegroup.She
has20yearsteachingexperienceandspecialistqualificationsincounsel
ling and special education.
Procedures
Assessments. Pretests and posttests were administered individually to all
students. The first pretest was a videotaped simulated job interview
consistingof13questions. Forexample, thefirstquestionwas, "Whydid
you applyforthisjob?"Thesixthquestionwas, "Wehave manyqualified
applicantsfor thisjob.Whydoyou thinkwe shouldhireyou?"Question
13 provided the intervieweewith an opportunityto ask questions ofthe
interviewer. A research associate who did not know the students inter
viewedeachstudentindivdually,givingtheinstructionto treatthislikea
realjobinterviewfor a position as a counter person ata fastfood store.
Thesecond pretestwasa stimulatedrecall taskinwhich thevideotape
ofthe interviewwas stopped atfive key points and the studentasked to
recall what they were thinking at that point during the interview. The
third pretest consisted ofan II-question metacognitive interviewabout
how the student thought a person should behave, speak, and think
during an interview. For example, studentswere asked aboutwhat they
should do to make a good impression, and about what they would say
whenasked the reasonforleavingajobfromwhich theyhadbeenfired.
Posttests were administered in an identical manner to the pretests.
Scoring.Themockinterviewswerescorerdwithabehaviourchecklistof
10 items including: uses the interviewer's title and last name, does not
fidget, andasksquestionsoftheinterviewer.Interrateragreementonthe
behaviourchecklistforthe 10itemswas96%fortwoscorersfamiliarwith
90 RuthAnne H. Taves, NancyL. Hutchinson,John G. Freeman
the module. In addition, the mockinterviewswere scoredon 11 holistic
criteriaincluding elaboration ofresponses, self-confidence, and overall
impression.Eachitemwasratedonafive-pointscalewherein 1waspoor,
5 was excellent. Two raters familiar with the module had interrater
agreementcorrelationsrangingfrom.51 to.88onthe11criteria.Interra
ter reliabiltiy for the total score was .78.
Aqualitative contentanalysiswas carriedouton the stimulatedrecall
transcripts. Responses to the ll-item metacognitive interview were
scored for thoroughness and accuracy of understanding of interview
skillsonascaleof0to2.Interrateragreementfortworatersfamiliarwith
the module was 98.5%. copies of the measures and detailed scoring
criteria for all measures are available from the authors.
Intervention. Nine sessions were conducted twice weekly in fall 1990.
Scripts were used to guide the instruction. Each session began with a
reviewofthe self-questions and cues generatedin the previous session.
The teacher used clear explanations, modelling. Thinking aloud, and
self-questioningtoteachthestudentsstrategiesformonitoring,recogniz
ing,andenhancingtheirinterviewperformance.Thestudentspractised
interviewswithpartners,andgeneratedpersonalcuesandself-questions.
Discussionsfocused on self-assessmentandfeedback to membersofthe
group.
The first session introduced the instructional module. Mter viewing
negativeand positive interviewbeginnings, studentsgenerated self-cues
forappearanceandbehaviourandpractisedaninterviewwithapartner.
The second session consisted ofreviewing cues, producing cue cards,
analyzing behaviour in briefvideotaped interviews, and practising an
swering interview questions in the group.
In session three, the teacherandstudentsmodelledeffective answers
to common interview questions. The students practised in pairs and
prepared interview guidelines in group discussion. These guidelines
werereviewedinsessionfourandstudentspractisedusingtheguidelines
in an interview in which the partner assumed an unfamiliar name.
Session five consisted ofvideotaping interviews with partner and self
assessmentofinterviews.Insessionsixthegroupreviewedanddiscussed
the videotapes and generated new self-questions based on the video
taped feedback.
Session seven focused on three aspects of the interview: using the
modified self-questions to guide answers to questions, explaining one's
learning disability to an interviewer, and generating questions to askof
theinterviewer.Eachaspectwaspractisedwithapartner.Insessioneight
areviewofappropriateendingstointerviewswasfollowedbyvideotaping
ofinterviewswith partners. In session nine studentsparticipatedin self
assessment, group feedback ofvideotaped interviews and an informal
evaluation ofthe module.
InterviewSkills 91
RESULTS
Threekindsofdatawerecollectedinthisstudy-measuresofbehaviour,
cognition and metacognition.
BehaviouralMeasures
Mock Interview Behaviour Checklist. The behaviour checklist results indi
cate that two intervention subjects (students 2and 3) made large gains.
Student 3 scored 10 out of 10 on the posttest. Pretest averages were
similar, 4.3 for the intervention group and 4.7 for pre-post control. At
posttest, the intervention group had the highestscore, 7.5 ofa possible
10, while the pre-post control demonstrated a slight increase to 5.7,
suggesting that they may have learned some appropriate behaviours
fromparticipatinginthepretests.Theposttest-onlygroupdemonstrated
similar scores to the other two groups at pretest.
Fortheinterventiongroup,changewasmostapparentontwononver
bal behaviours, refraining from fidgeting (item 5) and keeping hands
awayfrom face (item 6). On the posttestall intervention students kept
theirhandsawayfrom theirfaces andonlyonefidgeted. On the pretest
all intervention students showed both behaviours. For the intervention
group, the verbal behaviour that showed most change from pretest to
posttest was asking questions of the interviewer (item 7). None ofthe
intervention students questioned the interviewer on the pretestand all
fourdidontheposttest.Themostdifficultbehaviourforthestudentswas
usingtheinterviewer'sname (item1).Onlyonestudent,intheinterven
tion group, used the interviewer's name at any time. The behaviour
checklistdatasuggestthattheinterventiongroupincreasedappropriate
behaviours and decreased inappropriate behaviours from pretest to
posttest.
MockInterviewHolisticScoring.Theholisticratingsprovideddataabout
behaviouratamoreintegratedlevel,suchasattentivenesstointerveiwer,
rather than discrete behaviours. The average scoresofthe three groups
takingthemockinterviewforthefirsttimeweresimilar,26.3 (pretestfor
intervention), 24.6 (pretestfor pre-posttestcontrol), and 25.3 (posttest
onlycontrol).Theaverage posttestscorefor the interventiongroupwas
44.5 outofa possible 55. The posttestaverage ofthe controlgroup that
had received the pretest, 29.3, fell between the otherscores. Students 2
and 3 in the intervention group had the highest scores on the posttest
andon5ofthe11characteristics,thetotalforthe4interventionstudents
was 18 orgreater outofa possible 20. These characteristicswere atten
tiveness to interviewer, elaboration of responses, appropriateness of
response, positivenessoftone, and initiative shown. Theoverallimpres
sion that the intervention students made at the posttest was positive.
92 RuthAnne H. Taves, NancyL. Hutchinson,John G. Freeman
Metacognitive Measure
The pattern ofscoreson the metacognitive interviewwassimilar to that
forthebehaviouralmeasures.Themeansforthethreefirsttimeadminis
trations were similar, 10.8 for the intervention group, 10.0 for the pre
post control group, and 9.3 for the posttest only control group. The
intervention grouphad the highestmean on the posttest, 16.8 (outofa
possible22),howeverthepre-postcontrolgroupshowedaslightdecline
toameanof7.7ontheposttest.Theonlyquestionontheposttestabout
which all the intervention students had difficulty reflecting was "What
shouldyousaywhenanemployerasksyouwhyyouappliedforthatjob?"
Oneveryotherposttestquestion,interventionstudentsscored2,indicat
ing a thorough, thoughtful respsonse or 1, showing some awareness of
the ways in which one should approach an employment interview.
Cognitive Measure
A stimulated recall measure was used as an indicator of the student's
knowledgeand cognitiveprocessingduringthe interview. Glaser (1990)
argued that researchers ought to experiment with measurement pro
cedures responsive to the structures and processes thatdevelop as indi
viduals movefrom beginningto advancedlearners. Ascompetence in a
domain grows, the knowledge base increasingly is characterized by
(a) coherenceofknowledge, (b) principledproblemsolving, (c) usable
knowledge,and (d) self-regulatoryskills(Chi,Glaser& FaIT,1988;Glaser,
1990,p.477).Foreachofthesecharacteristics,abriefqualitativeanalysis
ofthe stimulated recall data revealssuperiorityofposttestperformance
by subjects in the intervention group. Briefrepresentative examples of
the strength ofthe intervention students in each ofthesefour areasare
given.
Knowledge coherence. An example ofmore coherence ofknowledge on
the posttestthan on the pretestis provided byintervention studenttwo.
On the posttest, she stated, "Iwas trying to make it sound as positive as
can beand the partaboutmyclassesIdislike, Iwanted to tum itaround
like reasonswhy I dislike them." On the pretest, she answered, "I don't
know.Just, I was thinking ofthe answers but also whyyou should need
that information." Her response can be contrasted to the pre-posttest
control student five, who responded on the posttest that, "I couldn't
reallythinkof,uh,much tosayabout,uh,likeaboutschool.Ilikeschool
and everything but I don't know Ijust went blank there."
Problem solving. The intervention subjects generally showed greater
attention to problem solving in their posttest responses. Intervention
studentfourconsideredwhichjobsto talkaboutonboththepretestand
the posttest. However, he showed more principled problem solving on
the posttest through better understanding ofhis dilemma. On the pre
test, he said, "Which one should I talk about?" On the posttest, this
InterviewSkills 93
student said, "Should I include the paper route or should I just go
straight to payrolljobs?" Pre-posttest control student seven showed no
such development in his thinking about a problem associated with his
previousjobs. On the pretest, he replied, "I hope hedoesn'tphone and
find out how manyjobs I've lost in the last year and a half." On the
posttest, he said, "God, I hope he doesn't phone any of my bosses."
Usable knowledge. Intervention student one, when asked what she was
thinkingwhenshewalkedinandduringthefirstquestionoftheposttest,
replied, "I totallyforgot aboutwaitingfor you to tell me to [sitdown]."
She realized she had forgotten to use what she knew. This student
showednousableknowledgeonthepretestatthispointwithheranswer,
"IwasnervouscuzIdidn'tknowwhattosay."Pre-posttestcontrolstudent
sixshowednosuchchangeinusable knowledge. Onthepretest,hesaid,
"Scaredthat,andIdidn'tknowwhattobeexpectedofme."Theposttest
responsewasdifferentbutwasnotmore knowledgeable, namely, "ThatI
hope to get thejob." Posttest only control student ten's answer was "I
really didn't know what this was."
Self-regulatoryskills.Anexampleofimprovementinself-regulatoryskills
wasinterventionstudentthree.Whenaskedhowhethoughthehaddone
on the posttestmockinterview, hereplied, "Ididallright. Notgreat, too
great....Ihadgoodeyecontactanddidn'tfidgetlikeIusuallydidbefore
andI thoughtthose twowere thebiggestimprovementsonmypart.And
aswellas 'yeah.' Ididn'tsaythemoften butIdidsaythem."Thiscan be
comparedtothisstudent'sself-regulationonthepretest. "Ithought,well
I thoughtI hadgiven an all rightinterview. Itwasn't the bestbecause of
the,yeah,choppinessandthinkinghowyou'regonnadoitandsothere's
the 'ah's' and,like,notreallyknowingwhattosay."Although therewasa
change in the responses ofpre-posttestcontrol studentsix between the
two tests, therewas no apparentincreasein self-regulatoryskill. Indeed,
his self-perceptions were higher than the independent raters' percep
tions ofhis performance. On the pretest, he said, "That I might have a
good chance ofgettingthejob."On the posttest,where this subjectwas
rated higher, he answered, "ThatI knew thatsomewhere down the line
that I won't be getting thejob."
Briefexcerpts from the transcripts ofthe stimulated recalls indicate
thaton the posttestinterviews the intervention subjectswere usingwell
developed knowledge bases according to each ofthe four criteria.
DISCUSSION
Thispreliminarystudywasconductedtoassessthefeasibilityofapplying
cognitive instruction to enhance the employment interview knowledge
and skills of youth with learning disabilities. The data-behavioural,
cognitive, and metacognitive-suggestthatthe studentslearnedappro
priate interview behaviours enhanced their knowledge about the inter-
94 RuthAnne H. Taves, NancyL. Hutchinson,John G. Freeman
viewprocess,andtheirmetacognitiveawareness.Theconsistencyamong
measures of discrete behaviours (e.g., fidgeting), more global behav
iours (e.g., elaborating on answers), and metacognition suggest that
sutdentsunderstoodwhat theywere doing andwhy in the employment
interview.The more integratedanduseful knowledge basesofthe inter
vention group at posttest suggest more than temporary behavioural
change (Glaser, 1990). It is likely that including measures of mainte
nanceandtransferinfuturestudieswiththisinstructionalmodulewould
answer this question more adequately.
These preliminary data suggest some changes in behaviour also fol
lowedstudents' participationin the pretestinterviewandobservationof
the videotaped interview in the stimulated recall procedure without
furtherinstruction.However,nochangeswereapparentintheirmetcog
nitive interviews. Positive results in this study suggest that further re
search is warranted using this instructional module and these scoring
procedures. Cognitive instruction shows promise in enhancingemploy
ability as it has enhanced academic knowledge.
References
Biller,E.F.(1985). Understandingandguidingthecareerdevelopmentofadolescentsandyoungadults.
Springfield, IL: CharlesC.Thomas.
---. (1987) Careerdecision makingfor adolescents andyoung adults with learningdisabilities.
Springfield, IL: CharlesC. Thomas.
Bryan,T. (1990).Assessmentofstudentswithlearningdisabilitieswhoappeartobesociallycompetent.
Unpublished manuscript, UniversityofIllinois, Chicago.
Campbell,D.S.&Pharand,G.(1991).Assimilationandtransferin"TheBreakawayCompany":
Acognitivecareerreadinesscounsellingprogramforyoungoffenders.NationalConsultation
on lVcationalCounsellingPapers, 66-71.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. & Farr, M. (1988). The nature ofexpertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deshler,D.D.,Alley,G.R,Warner,M.M.&Schumaker,].B. (1981).Instructionalpracticesfor
promoting skill acquisition andgeneralization in severelylearningdisabled adolescents.
LearningDisability Quarterly, 4, 415-21.
Farley,R. C.& Hinman,S. (1987). Enhancingthepotentialforemploymentofpersonswith
disabilities: Acomparison oftwo interventions. Rehabilitation CounselingBulletin, 31, 4-16.
Glaser, R (1990). Toward new models for assessment. InternationalJournal ofEducational
Research, 14,475-83.
Hutchinson, N. L. & Wong, B.Y L. (1992). Intervention research in learningdisabilities: A
Canadian flavour. In B. Y L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning
disabilities (pp. 214-34). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.
Mathews, R M., Whang, P. L. & Fawcett, S. B. (1980). Development and validation ofan
occupationalskillsassessmentinstrument. BehavioralAssessment, 2, 71-85.
--. (1982).Behavioralassessmentofoccupationalskillsoflearningdisabledadolescents.
JournalofLearningDisabilities, 15,38-41.
Meichenbaum, D. (1986). Metacognitive methodsofinstruction: Currentstatusand future
prospects. SpecialServicesin theSchools, 3, 23-32.
OntarioMinistryofEducation. (1986).Handbookforteachersofstudentswithlearningdisabilities.
Toronto,ON: GovernmentofOntario.
Paris,S.G.& Winograd, P. (1990). Promotingmetacognitionandmotivationofexceptional
children. RemedialandspecialEducation, 11(6), 7-15.
InterviewSkills 95
Pressley,M.,Symons,S.,Snyder,B.L.& Cariglia-Bull,T. (1989).Strategyinstructionresearch
comesofage. LearningDisability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Roessler, R. T., Hinman, S. & Lewis, F. (1986). GE1:['F! Gettingemplayment through interview
training. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Research and Training Center in Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Schneider, M. & Yoshida, R. K. (1988). Interpersonal problem-solving skills and classroom
behavioral adjustmentin learning-disabled adolescentsand comparison peers.Journal of
SchoolPsychology, 26, 24-34.
Schumaker,].B.,Deshler,D.D.&Ellis,E.S.(1986).Interventionissuesrelatedtotheeducation
ofLD adolescents. In]. K. Torgeson& B.Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychologicalandeducational
perspectivesonlearningdisabiliites (pp. 329-65). Orlando, FL:Academic Press.
Swanson,H.L.(1989).StrategyInstruction:Overviewofprinciplesandproceduresforeffective
use. LearningDisability Quarterly, 12,3-14.
About theAuthors
RuthAnneH.Tavesisaneducationalconsultantwithovertwentyyearsexperienceincounsel
lingandspecial education. She hasworked in a learningdisabilities resource programata
secondaryschoolandiscurrentlywritingabookoncounsellingyoungpeoplewithlearning
disabilitiesbasedoninterviewsheldacrossCanada.Shehasdonesomeconsultationwiththe
CorrectionalServiceofCanadaaboutlearningdisabilitiesamong inmates.
NancyL.HutchinsonisassistantprofessorofEducationalPsychologyandSpecialEducation,
FacultyofEducation,Queen'sUniversity. Herresearchinterestsinclude thedevelopmentof
instructionforyouth with learningdisabilitiesin mathematicsand careereducation. She is
currentlywritingabookwithRuthAnneTavesandisprojectdirectorofPathwaysforYouthwith
LearningDisabilities.
JohnFreemanisaresearchassociatewiththePathwaysproject.Hisprimaryresearchinterestis
careercounsellingforat-riskyouth.
NOTE:ThisstudywasfundedbyagranttothesecondauthorfromtheCanadianGuidanceand
CounsellingFoundationandEmploymentandImmigrationCanada(a"CreationandMobiliz
ation ofCounsellingResourcesforYouth"project).
Addresscorrespondenceto: NancyL. Hutchinson,FacultyofEducation,Queen'sUniversity,
Kingston, OntarioK7L 3N6