Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
Disclaimer: I am aware that my references and citings are not in order. I will sort them out as soon as possible.
What is SRL?
Nov 2017
Planning
The first assignment regarding SRL is understanding what self-regulated learning actually is; what the term means, where its origins are, how it is related to other learning concepts, why it is important to know about and to develop.
The actual tasks include getting familiar with the learning materials* and produce a written account to express our understanding of the aforementioned, and, in addition, reveal the existing level of our self-regulatory skills.
*
Usher, E.L. & Schunk D.H. (2018) Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In Schunk D.H & Greene J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance 2nd Ed.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The Role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press
Zimmermann, B. J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 329-339.
Theoretical framework
We are exploring self-regulated learning from a social cognitive perspective, that is, cognitive, metacognitive, behavioural and environmental factors are all taken into account. Some concepts that are related to this topic include self-efficacy, agency, self-system, motivation, goal setting, evaluation, reflection, co-regulation among others.
Goal setting
At the very beginning I have designed the 'ideal' workflow for these assignments (based on my established way of approaching a similar learning task). For the first week, my goal is not so much related to the content, but rather the practical application of the SRL phases, with special focus on the monitoring aspect. I want to keep track of when as well as why deviations from this 'ideal' workflow occur, so that by the end of the task I will be able to weigh up internal and external factors, which I expect will provide an objective base for establishing causal attributions and will inform the planning and goal setting for the upcoming assignments.
With regard to how I plan to proceed with the actual tasks, here is a brief illustration:
Once I finish the planning phase, it will be uploaded to my blog.
I will create a concept map before the lecture to organise my previous knowledge and focus my attention to areas that I want to learn more about.
I will attend the lecture and be active, expend on the concept map and formulate questions.
The Usher & Schunk article is relatively short, and for this reason will be the first I plan to read. Highlighting, annotating and creating a concept map is done in parallel to the reading.
The book chapter by Pintrich will be read second, using same strategies as above.
(If I have time, I will also read the article by Zimmermann.)
The rest of the entry will be added to the blog.
Reflection on the planning phase
I expect that my planned workflow will be disrupted, but I have the confidence that I will finish the task on time. Since the topic is somewhat familiar and, more importantly, is also rather interesting, I have the motivation to engage with the learning material. I do have some reservations, however, as to how deeply I will be able to delve into it at this point, considering other demands requiring my attention.
As for attaining my goals, I believe I have planned the activities (for monitoring) well enough, as in keeping a record of my decisions whether I engage with a planned task or not, as well as about what influenced my decision at the given time.
Task performance
I have formed several questions while reading the learning materials, but eventually decided to focus on two very different aspects or areas of SRL. In both cases I have several follow-up questions that will propel me to read beyond the course material. Whether I will have the time to do that within the timeframe of this course remains to be seen at this point. I have not planned those activities at the time of writing this entry, but if I manage to study more, my learning and findings will be presented here in the form of an embedded edition.
The first area of interest is concerned with supporting young children to build up their self-efficacy. Getting familiar with this topic carries a high value for me personally, being a mother of two young children. According to Usher and Schunk (2018) the level of one's self-efficacy is vital in affecting whether one engages in self-regulatory behaviour. It is well established that becoming a skilled self-regulator has many benefits for one's everyday life, especially so regarding learning situations. In a way it seems, that having a healthy self-efficacy will lead to improved ability to create a desired outcome in every area of life. This line of thinking appears to be comparable to the idea of the growth mindset, introduced by Carol Dweck (referencing to be added). She describes having a growth mindset as having the belief that one can improve through effort and persistence, while having a fixed mindset leads to task avoidance, negative attitude to feedback, discontinuance of engagement and withdrawal. It is important to mention here the role of praise. A study by ... (reference to be added) explored the role of praise given in very early childhood in developing a growth mindset by the early school years. They found a positive correlation between receiving process praise and the existence of a growth mindset. They also found, however, that girls were more likely to receive person praise, while boys were more likely to receive process praise. These findings have important implications for parents. Are we setting up our kids to succeed or to fail in becoming good at self-regulating just by the way we talk to them? Are we aware of these effects of the language we use? It has certainly made me examine my behaviour towards my children.
Having explored this, Pintrich (2000) points out, that having high efficacy beliefs do not necessarily lead to better self-regulation, but are possibly mediated by personal characteristics, like age, gender or socioeconomic status.
Based on this, should parents be educated about SRL, possibly through school/kindergarten-home cooperations? Does it happen? If yes, how? If not, why not?
What activities are carried out in early childhood education settings that support SRL? If the physical environment can be aiding young children's ability to develop SRL strategies, what are the elements (toys, layout, other practices, etc) that do so, and which ones do not?
The second topic raised my interest while I was explaining what I read to my husband ('trying to teach' is certainly a working learning strategy for me). We were discussing approach and avoidance focus in goal orientation, and how these will result in using different self-regulatory strategies, as introduced by Pintrich (2000). The particular thought was, that it would be interesting to explore what type of goal orientation is dominant among his team mates at work. Are they interested in improving themselves, or just want to avoid looking incompetent? As personal motivation is a determining factor in the decision to engage in a learning activity (Pintrich, Zimmermann..), how could one support the adoption of mastery goal orientation in a group setting from a motivational perspective? Is it possible to do through co-reguation? Is it naturally happening through socially shared regulation? Does it negatively influence collaborative work, if the members have adopted different goal orientation? Or phrased differently, does it lead to better collaboration if the members share the same goal orientation (ideally, approach mastery goals)? Indeed, is this what socially shared regulation is about?
Is it a pre-requisite to be an expert self-regulator to engage in social regulation, or can both develop simultaneously? If someone is an expert (or highly trained professional) does it automatically mean they tend to adopt mastery goal orientation, simply because they have high levels of interest in their domain?
Regarding the second area of interest, I have less prior knowledge, but more questions. Since they also have a high value, I do plan to explore them further.
Reflection
My planning phase was split in two. I designed my workflow prior to acquiring any knowledge about the topic during this course. My goal setting was done after the initial introduction through the first lecture.
I was reflecting during the task performance phase constantly. As a result I was also modifying the planned workflow: added points that I discovered that were important, but also rearranged subtasks, as well as created new ones. I also came up with new strategies and methods to aid my learning and comprehension.
From about halfway through the workflow I started regularly consulting the assignment brief to aid the structuring of this entry as well as making sure I cover what was expected for this task.
Although, my planned workflow was disrupted (as expected, albeit to a higher extent than anticipated) I did manage to attain my goal of monitoring my performance phase. I do have a log of my decisions and got a better insight into how often external and internal factors affected my decision making (I did try to be honest and objective in my attributions).
Every time I was about to enter a learning/working time period I would run a sorting algorithm comparing tasks to each other, including tasks from other courses, based on their urgency, perceived difficulty and personal appeal.
At the time of writing about the two areas of interest, I was enjoying exploring the topics, I felt being in the flow (Csíkszentmihályi,...), as I was able to relate the topics to some of my previous readings. As a result, it took more time completing the task, but the value of creating a higher quality product outweighed the gains of other activities (such as sleeping... not limitlessly, though).
I feel confident that I understand the materials well and have a high level of motivation to continue to expend my knowledge, both in breadth and depth, about SRL.
A challenge I faced, or rather, a learning point I made was not to have pre-conceived ideas about the difficulty of a task prior to attempting it. I was afraid of not understanding the Pintrich chapter, simply because of its length. I expected it to be theoretical to the point that I have difficulties comprehending the text and so was putting it off. I was wrong, which I found out eventually, when I just decided to get on with it (I had no time to spare). I did apply some strategies, instead of not applying any, which of course, also helped.
Planning
The third task during this course is focusing on the emotional and motivational aspect of self regulated learning. I find it particularly interesting, as it is related to deep personal values, a topic I have previously spent considerable amount of time exploring for personal reasons. I also tend to ask many ‘why’ questions to be able to discover the core issues that influence people’s decisions for actions (or inactions).
Since my first entry received a good feedback, I will keep the same structure for this post as well.
The learning materials are the following:
Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. (pp. 408–425)
Boekaerts, M. & Pekrun, R. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic settings
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (4), pp. 189-205
Other articles included in my study:
-
Arai, A B. (2000) Reasons for home schooling in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education (25) 2:204-217.
-
Boekaerts, M. (2010). Motivation and Self-Regulation: Two Close Friends. In ..
-
Gottfried, A. et al (1998). Role of Cognitively Stimulating Home Environment in Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation: A Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 69 (1448-1460)
-
Martinez-Pons, M. (1996). Test of a model of parental inducement of academic self-regulation. Journal Of Experimental Education, 64(3), 213.
-
Lubienski, C. (2003) A Critical View of Home Education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 17:2-3, 167-178, DOI: 10.1080/09500790308668300
-
Ray, B. (2013). Homeschooling Associated with Beneficial Learner and Societal Outcomes but Educators Do Not Promote It, Peabody Journal of Education, 88:3, 324-341, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2013.798508
-
Romanowski, M. (2001). Common arguments about the strengths and limitations of home schooling. The Clearing House (75)
-
Paula Rothermel (2003) Can We Classify Motives for Home Education? Evaluation & Research in Education, 17:2-3, 74-89, DOI: 10.1080/09500790308668293
-
Zimmerman, Schunk (2008). Motivation, an Essential Dimension of Self-Regulated Learning in
Theoretical framework
Concepts that are related to this week topics include interest, values, emotions (anxiety, fear, joy, pride, etc), motivation, regulation of motivation, regulation of emotion, volition, …
Goal setting
Since I am highly motivated to learn during this course, my personal goal regarding this topic is to identify and catalogue techniques, strategies for motivation and emotion regulation to add to my inventory, as well as to relate them to previous instances when I did use or could have used such strategies.
How I will know that I achieved my goal, is by having a document with at least 4 named strategies with links to past examples or experiences and possible future scenarios, including description of signs that should indicate that there is a need for motivation and/or emotion regulation.
What I learnt from the previous task performance phase, is that while I work really well during the night, being up late has consequences for my other responsibilities. So this time around I try not to stay up till the early hours, meaning, I start working earlier and won’t put off tasks that ‘seem’ difficult.
Other then scheduling issues, there are some other changes made to my workflow, namely the writing of this entry. Earlier I would write only notes and write up the entry in one at the end of the work. Now, instead, I will keep writing up parts as I formulate them parallel to reading and other activities.
Reflections on the planning phase
I intend to read beyond the required articles, since I have collected relevant materials that could be useful. My set goal is smart, as in specific, meaningful, action-oriented, realistic and trackable.
Task performance (edited version)
After some extra research I decided to rewrite my notes. I kept the focus on the context, namely home based education or home-schooling, and connected both motivational and emotional aspects of SRL to the learning that takes place in that setting. From the emotional perspective my interest was raised while reading about the effects of fear (or other negative emotions) on the cognitive processes. From the motivational perspective, I was wondering about the possible benefits of home-schooling resulting from its nature of being able to provide very individualised learning opportunities. Initially, I wanted to work on these issues separately, but as they are highly interconnected, questions regarding each will appear parallel during this post.
There are many reasons why parents would decide to remove their child/ren from an institutional educational setting and care for their academic development in a home based setting (Rothermel, Arai), with a wide variation between different cultures or societies. While I do not want to go deeper into examining these reasons, they certainly have an effect on the quality of the learning opportunities and situations the child/ren will experience.
There is a very visibly growing trend in Hungary among, mostly, educated parents or whose child has special needs to seek alternative solutions to schooling. I do not have access to statistics on how often children are affected negatively in schools (and in what way), but based on anecdotal evidence my assumption is that the occurrences are more numerous than should be. So the question naturally occurs: would kids learn better at home? If yes, in all cases or only under specific circumstances (as in the existence or of student centred learning approaches)?
Based on research in neuroscience we know that mood, for example, is a potent modulator of attention, (Dekker et al) consequently deep learning will be inhibited by negative emotions such as fear or anxiety as it prompts us to pay more attention to and examine the sources of these emotions taking away cognitive resources from the learning task at hand (Boekaerts and Pekrun). Boekaerts and Pekrun also highlight the need to distinguish between activating and deactivating emotions, indicating that in certain situations anger, anxiety or shame can, in fact, lead to increased motivation for task engagement in order to avoid failure. However, the neuroscientific evidence mentioned earlier, would make us believe, that this only applies in cases where surface learning is sufficient to carry out the learning task.
People experience a wide range of emotions at schools, but then a question arises: is fear also present in home based settings? Fear and anxiety (related to testing or exams) is the most researched emotion by educational psychologists (Boekaerts, Boekaerts & Pekrun). While state regulations vary, my assumption is that children educated at home take fewer tests or exams, therefore endure fear or anxiety less often and to a lesser extent than their counterparts in public schools. This way making the home environment a more favourable environment for deep learning. Ideally (without evidence I can only hypothesise), parents acting as teachers, facilitators, coaches, mentors, etc for their own children, would mean that they have a better teacher-student relationship built on trust, which again would result in more positive emotional outcomes.
If parents have a better chance to create a positive emotional environment, are they able to form better conditions for their children to step on and follow the mastery pathway as in Boekaert's model of self-regulation? Are they able to educate their child based on its intrinsic motivation to learn? Gottfried et al suggest, that that is indeed the case. They studied whether a cognitively stimulating home environment results in subsequent academic intrinsic motivation in the children, for which they found supporting evidence in their longitudinal study. They also claimed that the mere presence of cognitive stimulation in the home signals to the child that such activities are valuable and so children develop a positive attitude towards them. According to Zimmerman and Schunk, intrinsic motivation (personal interest likewise) is a precursor, mediator as well as a concomitant source of motivation. By definition, do parents who create an emotionally positive, cognitively stimulating home learning environment create better chances for their children to achieve ongoing academic successes by generating this positive motivational spiral?
Having studied about home education in relation to SRL the main question that I would research further emerged: do home-schooled children develop regulatory skills easier (as I previously assumed) or on the contrary, being in a favourable environment reduces the need for developing those skills as there is no discrepancy that would require adaptation, as in: no studying against one's will, having a flexible schedule, instruction based on the child's interests, etc?
As a closing remark, I do not contend Lubienski's claim that home schooling exaggerates the existing level of advantages and disadvantages between children. Indeed, my own experience backs this view, and while I believe homeschooling can be much more beneficial for the individual (at least in certain cultures or societies) I cannot overlook the detrimental effect that this growing movement can have from a societal point of view.
Reflection
My reflection has been both in action, and on action. This is also the case now, I keep adding points to this section of the entry during the task performance phase (or even before) with the purpose of remembering, making it part of the monitoring activities, as well as giving myself the chance to regulate in action.
It is worth stopping and thinking about the value of the task and how it fits in the big picture - being the ‘me-leader’, and setting goals and the schedule and the strategies - being the ‘me-manager’, and making sure the ‘me-leader’ and the ‘me-manager’ has regular meetings to discuss progress and achievements.
I fell ill late last week and realised I needed a break from academics. I spent a short time just resting and not worrying about the amount of tasks waiting. While it certainly caused some piling up, my mind is at ease, no-one can be performing at their best all the time. I am also shifting focus slightly when it comes to my effort/resource allocation, which is also contributing to the feeling of having a better balance at this time.
Reflection on the planning phase
While I did finish all the course tasks planned for this week, I did not reach my personal goal of having the strategy inventory ready, partly because of the reasons mentioned above. I did not anticipate covering so many regulation strategies during the readings, which led to having my goal fulfilled to some extent. Having said that, discovering the presence of those in my past learning situations requires more effort, hence that part is still missing. Furthermore, as I discovered, not all strategies have enough evidence to associate them with improved performance. I need to find more up to date research to be able to decide about, and judge for myself, the benefits of using one or the other.
(edited)
I did actually rewrite my ICE notes, as I did more research about the phenomena of home-schooling. I have learnt more about SRL by including extra articles in my study, I do, however, have to reassess if investing more time in this task provided enough gains (since I prioritised this task I had to limit my involvement in other learning tasks).
Also, I’m really happy I have the tools that fit my preferred way of learning… easy, saves time! I have spent a very long time trying out different tools and apps that would work for me and ended up actually paying for one that I rely on almost exclusively for note-taking. Having these gadgets and apps at my disposal contributes to the upkeep of my motivational level (but sometimes causes frustration when I loose notes because of a badly designed feature of the user interface...).
Motivation and emotions in SRL
Nov 2017
Planning
We are at the last theme that we cover during this course. As I never trained to be a teacher or other educator, my knowledge about cognition and metacognition is rather superficial. Exploring these concepts will certainly expand my knowledge about learning processes and how to aid the development of cognitive and metacognitive thinking.
The learning materials are the following:
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14
Other articles included in my study:
-
Astington, J & Edward, M (2010) The development of theory of mind in early childhood, Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
-
Bartsch, K & Estes, D. (1996) Individual differences in children's developing theory of mind and implications for metacognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 281-304
-
Destan, N et al (2014) Early metacognitive abilities: The interplay of monitoring and control processes in 5- to 7-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 213-228
-
Stel, M & Veenman, M (2010) Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 220-224
-
Veenman, M & Elshout, J (1999) Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills during the acquisition of epertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 509-523
Theoretical framework
Cognition, metacognition, memory, metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience, metacognitive skills/skilfulness.
Goal setting
After attending the introductory lecture and subsequent seminar this week I realised how little I know about these concepts. I thought I had a vague idea that was more or less correct, but I have mixed feelings about where I stand in this all. I felt rather confused. So for this time around my goal is very simple and concrete, I want to ease that confusion and make sure that I have a clear understanding of cognition and metacognition, as stand alone concepts as well as in relation to self-regulated learning.
I will judge my success in achieving this goal by trying to teach these concepts to others.
I have set a much shorter timeframe for the task than previously, which requires rearranging some priorities as well as close monitoring of my time usage. On top of this, I most likely need to reevaluate my preferred learning strategies.
Reflections on the planning phase
I will probably feel disappointed about my plan for two reasons. First, that I won’t have as much time to explore freely as previously. Second, that even this shortened timeframe will cause me to neglect other personally important things. I need to remind myself that it is only for now and that I have done my best (perhaps I don’t believe it to be true, but I still have to say it…).
Task performance
This post will be slightly different than my previous entires, as I first try to summarise what I have learnt about metacognition (and cognition) up until now, then go on to discuss some specifics about these concepts, first, in relation to my own experiences as a learner and second, with regard to the development of metacognitive skill and strategies.
Flavell introduced the term ‘metacognition’ in 1979 and described it as a model of cognitive monitoring (or regulation, Veenman et al). There is a wide range of concepts associated with metacognition, which makes it difficult to formulate a unified definition of it or a theory around it. While Flavell made a distinction between ‘metacognitive knowledge’ and ‘metacognitive experiences’, it is more common to see components as ‘metacognitive knowledge’ and ‘metacognitive skills’. The former one concerns declarative knowledge about personal, task or cognitive strategy related information stored in the long-term memory that can be activated consciously, or be triggered by environmental cues. The later refers to procedural knowledge about monitoring and controlling one’s cognitive activities.
There is a constant interplay between cognitive (object level) and metacognitive (meta level) processes in the form of monitoring and controlling, as is the case when a supervisor constantly oversees and evaluates the actions of its subordinate and instructs it to do things differently when expected progress is not made.
While reading the suggested materials, I kept thinking what I knew about thinking about thinking…
The way I approached these weekly learning tasks has helped me learn, by for example activating prior knowledge, selecting something personally relevant, doing extra reading to broaden and deepen my understanding and searching for connections. I have come to realise the benefits of having to write these posts and answering them in a way, that it meaningful to me. I have discovered some new aspects about my cognitive processes, reevaluated my beliefs about certain cognitive strategies as I have employed some of them with a different attitude than previously.
Main learning points: I managed to identify gaps regarding cognitive knowledge, so I am more aware of what I still need to develop. While I knew it before, it got underscored again that, even tho it takes time to think about thinking, it is worth it on the long run. How to empower others to share this belief is discussed next.
Researchers claim that theory-of-mind develops around the age of 3 to 5 years (Veenman et al). This statement got my attention for two reasons. First, I didn’t know what theory-of-mind (ToM) meant. Second, my children fall exactly into that age range at the opposite ends. ToM can be very simply described as the ability to put oneself into someone else’s shoe or seeing things from someone else’s perspective. More scientifically, it is a social cognitive ability to attribute mental states to oneself and to others, or having the understanding that others have different beliefs, desires, intentions than one’s own.
The development of ToM is at the early stage of the development of metacognition (Veenman et al) and is one of the most important development in early childhood as it determines a child’s ability to function in a social setting (Astington), like a school. Others consider it as a prerequisite for metacognition (Bartsch & Estes). What can parents do to aid this development and why is it important? Astington highlights the importance of pretend-play, storytelling, and expressing one’s thoughts and feelings to children for developing ToM. This way they start to form ideas about cognitive and noncognitive mental state concepts, such as beliefs, perceptions, desires or knowledge. Once children acquire understanding of those different concepts, they can start thinking about them and how they relate to each other, and that thinking process leads to the formation of more refined concepts of cognition and to the development of metacognition (Bartsch & Estes).
Also, it is beneficial for parents to be aware of the signs that indicate abnormal development of ToM, as it can be a result of, for example, autism, in which case early detection is crucial for accessing expert help.
On a more positive note, I think it would be rather interesting to do some simple experiments with my children to see if I can determine at what stage they are in their metacognitive development.
Reflection
Right away I decided to do things differently. At the beginning of this learning task I used techniques that I normally enjoy doing, but haven’t used during this course. This already gave a boost and made me wonder why I have been ignoring them. Most likely, because I have been successfully relying on others.
Even though I set a short time for finishing this task, once I covered the compulsory material, I couldn’t help myself and searched for further information. I decided to go through the past volumes of the ‘Metacognition and Learning’ Journal just to see if there was something intriguing. As usual, once I found an interesting line of inquiry, I was on a roll. But it required starting the work… If I kept on agonising about the awful lot of things I still had to do before the end of the semester, I would have probably made very little progress, if any… missing out on all the positive feelings associated with developing competence.
I did explain what I have learnt to my husband, and I believe he has a good idea of it too, but to make sure he really understood I will question him again a bit later.
Cognition and metacognition in SRL
Dec 2017
Planning
I decided to work on the SRL models as the last task. I made the assumption that I will be able to better understand them after having studied the previous topics. During the introductory lecture we were presented with the five (plus one) main models of SRL, one each by Boekaert, Efklides, Pintrich, Winne&Hadwin and Zimmerman (and the SSRL model). What I have found very useful is the comparison chart of the models, highlighting where each has a stronger focus, thus making it easier to understand how each one sees SRL and the interactions between its components.
The learning materials are the following:
Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277– 304). Routledge
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 1–35). Academic Press
Other articles included in my study:
-
Järvenoja, H. and Järvelä, S. (2009), Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges/. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79: 463–481. doi:10.1348/000709909X402811
-
Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009) 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times
Theoretical framework
Concepts that are related to this task include: self-regulated learning, shared regulation of learning, motivation regulation, emotion regulation, learning strategies, monitoring and controlling, collaborative learning, metacognition, etc.
Goal setting
Since the timing of this task is close to the final exam of this course, my goal is to cover the materials with the intention to find links to the exam questions. I will use this time to create a concept map or the backbone for each of the essay questions (where applicable).
I will need to spend a bit more time thinking about the best way to do this, since this learning goal is different in nature than the previous ones. I might need to use different strategies.
Among others, I will most likely print materials, set subgoals, write them down, carry out focused discovery instead of free discovery, rehearse, etc.
Reflections on the planning phase
There are three things affecting my study at this point. First, the desire to finish all the learning tasks before the deadline and at the same time prepare for the exam, which means the task has a rather high value. Second, the input I received from others regarding the reading materials, considering them difficult, which made me more alert. Third, my self-knowledge, that I like working with models and flowcharts, which makes me cautiously optimistic that I will be able to finish the task and achieve my learning goal.
Task performance
As this was my last task I was already somewhat familiar with the models themselves through the readings of previous weeks. The most useful aspect this time was the comparison of the different models (as I also noted earlier). Understanding where the different models had their origins and recognising that each relies on a distinct area of SRL to be its driving force, hence being valuable for informing interventions in different contexts at different times, was personally the most beneficial learning outcome of this task.
This idea has also became one of the topics for this entry, namely about the effects of SSRL interventions in educational settings. As Panadero (2017) claims, the various models have distinct affordances for interventions at different levels of education. My first thought was related to a course that ran parallel during this semester (Problem solving case 1 - Case1), where we worked in groups to design a multidisciplinary learning project for primary school students. Analysing that course/project is relevant here from two aspects. First, concerning our teamwork and the way that was supported by our teachers, and secondly, regarding our planned intervention with the pupils.
Even though we lack knowledge about co-regulation and socially shared regulation of learning, I can safely assume we had to use SSRL strategies since we developed the project as a group. Continuing that thought I started wondering if and in what way our collaborative work might have been scaffolded. Research seems to suggest that for higher education students, training of SRL with a motivational or emotional focus (based on Boekaerts’s, Pintrich’s or Zimmerman’s model) might be more advantageous (Panadero). Most instances that I am able to recall are/were concerned with domain specific knowledge (SRL being the domain of this course, is clearly, a special case - to what extent people made use of the information from this course and applied it during the other, I am unable to tell). We did get instructions on some aspects of managing group work, or collaborative learning, or even practiced collaborative learning, but themes on the subject of motivation or emotion were certainly not in the forefront, even tho, they play a key role in the success of a collaboration (Järvenoja & Järvelä). As the project has now ended, reflecting back on it, emotional and motivational matters were certainly part of the process. It would be interesting to discuss how the different collaborating parties perceive these issues and whether they will be addressed during subsequent implementations of the Case1 course.
Collaborative learning skills are considered to be 21st century skills (Trilling & Fadel) and are highly promoted in educational settings (OPS). Having this in mind, it was rather surprising to read that group work, as part of SRL interventions, were counterproductive in primary education settings (Panadero). In our project we put a strong emphasis on the need for collaborative work for the pupils. In light of my newfound knowledge, I will have to reappraise this approach. I also intend to find out what exactly the authors (Dignath and Büttner) discovered regarding this issue.
My other topic is also related to interventions aiming to teach about SRL, but in another context. Zimmerman’s multilevel model (Zimmerman, Panadero) introduces the developmental factor to SRL. The model can be used to inform when to change instructional methods, as learners progress from one level of skill acquisition to the next. This model can also be applied to the development of SRL skills. Panadero makes the case for further research about the role of SRL in adult life. Many lines of events seem to connect for me here. My background is in HR and talent management (also leadership development) and a vital part of that work is encouraging the development of self-awareness. I was reminded of the importance of this during one of the student teaching sessions of this course, when using and discussing about the metacognitive awareness inventory. Later, I inquired about the presence of any workplace training events (at two different companies) that would be even remotely connected to this topic. It was not unexpected, but was still slightly surprising to get a negative answer.
I consider this line of investigation highly probable for my future research tasks.
Reflection
I was correct in the reflection on the planning phase to assume that some of the reading material might be challenging. Winne's use of language in his article felt rather archaic at points, which obstructed my progress in comprehending the text. On the other hand, I was also correct in assuming that I will have no difficulties in understanding the models themselves.
In relation to my goals, I did finish the tasks on time, however, my work regarding exam preparation is not yet finished, as there are still a couple days till the exam. I did find myself using strategies that were not needed before, such as rehearsing.
At the moment I feel I have learnt a lot, and made a lot of progress in understanding what SRL is about, however, I think I need some time away from it to let all of that sink in. The main idea behind SRL is not foreign to me, but I have got a much richer picture by expanding my knowledge about the different processes and components that make up the whole system, as well as about implications for practice.
All in all, I believe I have gained a lot and invested a lot by going beyond of what was requested, and this work will continue as I have a lot of lines for further investigation open. I am also looking forward to the subsequent courses about SSRL and CL and see what new I can learn and what kind of connections I find to my pervious experiences.
(edit)
See below for my plans I developed for the essay questions, as well as my responses for the short questions.
Models of SRL
Dec 2017
1. Name and describe the three phases of SRL according to Zimmerman
In his cyclical model, Zimmerman differentiates between forethought, performance and self-reflection phases. During ‘forethought’, learners analyse the task, set goals and plan their operations, guided by motivational beliefs and affected by emotional states. Task execution happens during ‘performance’. Monitoring activities are also carried out, and those influence the level of regulative behaviour the learner engages in in order to achieve (or otherwise) the set goals. During ‘self-reflection’ learners assess their performance and make casual attributions, which then affect their approach to future learning tasks.
2. Describe the role of monitoring in SRL
Self-monitoring is a central process to SRL. During monitoring learners reflect on various aspects of their performance and generate feedback about their progress. They can compare outcomes to established goals or evaluate the effectiveness of a particular strategy. Monitoring is the side of the feedback loop that connects the object level to the meta level. While it won’t necessarily lead to controlling behaviour, only by having this feedback it is possible to take corrective actions, or otherwise, regulate.
3. Describe two motivation regulation strategies
Goal-oriented self-talk: learners use thoughts or subvocal statements to revisit existing or invent new reasons for persisting with a task. Mastery related reasons are related to intrinsic interest, increased competency or autonomy.
Environmental structuring: a strategy to minimise the chances for off-task behaviour or the probability to encounter distractions by exercising control over one’s surrounding. This can be achieved by altering the physical environment or managing one’s mental or physical readiness to learn.
4. Define attribution in SRL, and give an example.
Attribution theory is concerned with how and why people explain events as they do. In learning situations it relates to learners’ perceptions about the causes for succeeding or failing to achieve one’s learning goals. Causal attributions can be made before, during or after a learning task is complete. Attributions that reflect internal, controllable causes can lead to a positive cycle of regulation. For example, attributing failure to ineffective use of time, or strategy choice preserves the power of agency of the person.
5. Define metacognitive knowledge in your own words.
Metacognitive knowledge includes knowledge about the self (one’s strengths and weaknesses), about the task and goals (what is the required level of cognitive effort), general knowledge about strategies and their effectiveness in relation to the task at hand (what, why and how to use), as well as the conditions under which those strategies can be effective (when to use). Can be activated deliberately or be automatically triggered by environmental cues.