Solo phase description
This solo task handles three different articles; they are (1) Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared regulation of learning; (2) Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention; and (3) A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. The first article defines self-regulation, co-regulation and socially shared regulation and differentiates among the three concepts, in addition to the challenges in theory facing regulation of learning. The second article defines self-regulated learning and discusses the interactions existing between students’ motivation to learn and their wellbeing. Meanwhile, the third article defines self-regulated learning and presents its different components illustrating the existing relationships among these components.
This task in particular will deal with the following concepts:
Social cognitive assumptions, and the triadic analysis of self-regulated learning;
Determinants of self-regulated learning;
What are the differences between SRL, Co-RL and Socially Shared Regulation;
Research on SRL;
Challenges facing research in the regulation of learning;
Approaches to self-regulation;
Instruments to assess self-regulation;
I am hoping I can finish these in two days of time.
I am confident that I will achieve the needed writing by the deadline set. I am trying to follow the assessment criteria, however, I am not quite sure of whether what I am writing is at the same time what is needed.
Article Three: A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning (Zimmerman, 1989)
In principle, and according to Zimmerman (1986, 1989), self-regulated learners meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally actively participate in their own learning process. These students usually rely on themselves, and direct their efforts towards knowledge and skills acquisitions with less dependence on teachers. This “independence” in learning suggests that students need to have educational goals, and therefore need to strategize to reach them. Goals and strategies are set usually based on students’ self-efficacy. To better understand, self-regulation we should define self-efficacy on which the former is based. Self-efficacy is defined as the perceptions of one’s capabilities to organize and implement actions to reach a designated task or goal (Bandura, 1986; in Zimmerman, 1989). Reaching goals is important in self-regulated learning, but the strategies used contribute a lot in this effect. SRL strategies are defined as actions and processes directed towards acquiring knowledge. Strategies could involve methods such as organizing and transforming information, self-consequenting, seeking information or using memory aids (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986; in Zimmerman, 1986). Setting any goal would not mean that students are self-regulating their learning; the goal in question has to be academic or educational in nature. Meaning goals like grades, social esteem, employment, class tasks etc …
Social cognitive assumptions, and the triadic analysis of self-regulated learning;
Now that we defined self-regulated learning in a general way, we will dig deeper in what makes this process work, and what kind of inter-dependent constructs make up the entirety of self-regulation learning. Bandura (1977b, 1986) in Zimmerman (1986) spoke of differences between personal, environmental and behavioral determinants. The interaction between the three determinants is called triadic reciprocality. We will go through the different determinants in the third section. Meanwhile, the main conclusion from the triadic reciprocality statement is, according to Dandura (1986), that behaviors exhibited by students, during SRL, is the results of both self-generated and external sources of influence, meaning respectively self-related issues and environment related issues.
Figure 1: Triadic analysis of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1986).
Although the three determinants are inter-related and bi-directional, there is no symmetry in the strength of the bi-directional influence. Meaning that one determinant can affect the other one without being affected equally by this other determinant. Moreover, Bandura (1986) explained that the relationships between determinants of SRL and their strength is dependent on personal efforts to self-regulate, outcomes of behavioral performance and changes in environmental context. This suggests that these determinants are not static, and they could change based on students’ perceptions of their effectiveness, when the latter affects self-efficacy. When this happens, regulation of these determinants should take place to regulate where regulation is needed, meaning depending on the type of factor students are currently dealing with, whether personal, environmental or behavioral. Another form of regulation could be called covert regulation which enables students’ to regulate or change in their personal determinant based on feedback of the same personal determinant in question.
Zimmerman (1986) claimed that self-efficacy as a concept affects the process of students’ self-regulation. In fact Zimmerman evokes that students with high self-efficacy display better quality of learning strategies (Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984; in Zimmerman, 1986) and more self-monitoring of their learning outcomes (Dierner & Dweck, 1978; in Zimmerman, 1986). Moreover, Zimmerman cites more than references to support his claim that self-efficacy is positively related to task persistence, task choice, effective study activities, skills acquisition and academic achievement.
If we think about self-efficacy and its definition, it is all about knowing one’s self. Knowing one’s self might be achieved better with sub-processes in self-regulation, as Bandura (1986) in Zimmerman (1986) calls them. They are self-observation, self-judgment and self-reaction.
Determinants of self-regulated learning;
Here comes the part where we get to elaborate on the different determinants of SRL, which parts of the triadic process, Bandura (1986) talked about. Before elaborating on each component, it is necessary to state a note by Thoresen and Mahoney (1974) in Zimmerman (1986). They claimed that SRL is not an absolute process, which means the process of regulation does not happen immutably; rather it depends on social and physical contexts surrounding learners in different situations.
Let’s start with components of personal influences: Students’ self-efficacy depend greatly on other four components, they are students’ knowledge, meta-cognitive processes, goals and the affective domain.
Students’ knowledge is divided into procedural and declarative knowledge.
Declarative knowledge is the kind of knowledge which is not affected by external contexts (Siegler, 1982) in (Zimmerman, 1986)
Procedural knowledge is the kind of knowledge which is organized around conditions and actions (Anderson, 1976) in (Zimmerman, 1986).
Moreover, on the level of meta-cognitive decision making, students get to carefully choose the needed learning strategies to attain the goals in question, on which also, decision making depends. In any case, goals need to be challenging but not impossible for students to attain. Hence, Bandura (1986) in Zimmerman (1986) spoke of proximal goal setting, which ensures that students set challenging yet doable goals, and helps in elevating self-efficacy for task achievement when learning difficulties are exhibited.
When it comes to the affective domain, studies have shown that anxiety for example can inhibit meta-cognitive processes, which in its turn affects self-efficacy of learners.
On another hand, behavioral influences are dependent on three classes of students’ responses during regulation. The three classes are self-observation, self-judgment and self-reaction, which are considered by Zimmerman (1986) as behavioral influences on self-regulated learning based on his triadic interpretation of SRL determinants.
Self-observation is when students monitor their performance. It is however, influenced by different processes like self-efficacy, goal setting and meta-cognitive planning. Self-observation can be divided into verbal reporting or quantitative recording of one’s actions and/or reactions.
Self-judgment is when students compare their performance to a pre-set standard or goal. This construct is related to the same influences as self-observation is. Moreover, self-judgment can happen based on check in procedures or rating, the first being re-examining performance, and the second is by comparing it to the one of others.
Self-reactions is the reaction of students to their own performance, and is usually in reciprocal relationship with the same influences ad the two construct before, but especially with self-efficacy. Three classes of self-reaction strategies exist; they are behavioral self-reactions when students seek to optimize their learning responses, personal self-reactions whereby students try to enhance their learning processes during learning, and environmental self-reactions through which students try to improve their learning environment. These three kinds of reactions are self-initiated and sustained based on positive self-evaluations.
Finally, Bandura (1986) in (Zimmerman, 1986) claims that the three classes of behavioral influences are all interconnected and interdependent.
Moving on to the environmental influences, which is the last type of influences in the triadic process of self-regulation. Those influences are divided among, enactive experience, modeling, verbal persuasion, social support, and the structure of learning context. Bandura (1986) emphasized the importance of enactive experience because it reflect direct input on learners’ self-efficacy, which in its turn pushes students to remain motivated and on task. Modeling on the other hand, could be for example when a teacher models self-regulated learning strategies to students; this when it happens could improve students’ self-efficacy, even for those with learning deficiencies. Verbal persuasion, which is highly dependent on students’ level of verbal abilities, could nurture a variety of cognitive, affective, and academic skills. Self-directed learners, as they are called by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) in Zimmerman (1986), relay also on social support in the form of direct assistance from teachers, or other involved parties, and in the form of literary or other symbolic forms of information like diagrams and formulas. The willingness to reach for source of information or social support was found to be related to learners’ achievement. Lastly, the structure of the learning context like the task structure, difficulty and other conditions affect heavily self-regulated learning, by affecting self-efficacy of learners.
Article one: Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared regulation of learning (Hadwin, et al, 2011)
As human beings, in contrast to animals, we are blessed with the “virtue” of agency, which is defined by Bandura (1986) in (Hadwin, et al, 2011) as the capacity to intentionally plan for, control, and reflect on actions exhibited by us. When it comes to learning agency could be of great help to self-regulated learners, because it allows them to be able to plan and control their own learning, of course when it comes to educational or academic tasks. The following help us better describe self-regulated learning so we can distinguish it from other forms of learning:
Regulated learning is intentional and goal directed;
Goals enable students to compare their performance to a needed standard; they also are the result of translation of tasks which dictates what kind of activities, strategies and discourse would students engage in during regulated learning.
Regulated learning is meta-cognitive;
This is about being able to evaluate the current position against a certain standard. Meta-cognitive abilities allow self-evaluation, which enables self-reaction needed after goal attainment.
Learners regulate behavior, cognition and motivation;
Regulating these three components is at the basis of self-regulated learning; therefore any research which does not study those components cannot be called research about regulated learning.
Regulated learning is social;
No matter how regulated learning is viewed, it is non debatable that it is socially based, and depends on environmental contexts which include the social component.
Learning that is challenging invites strategic regulation of learning
Without challenges in learning, students might not need to self-regulate, but then learning would not be meaningful enough. To be challenged gives the opportunity to regulate learning by choosing suitable strategies and monitoring progress towards a goal.
What are the differences between SRL, Co-RL and Socially Shared Regulation;
Before displaying the differences between SRL, CO-RL and socially shared regulation of learning, let’s define the last two terms first.
CO-RL is when regulation happens among people and activity systems, not on an individual plan
Shared regulation of learning is about interdependent or collectively shared regulatory processes performed in the interest of a shared outcome.
Now that these two are defined, we will discuss the differences existing between the three concepts. The table below is taken from (Hadwin, et al, 2011) and it illustrates the main difference in terms of definition, task contexts, goal, pedagogical mechanisms and research techniques.
To start with definitions, Co-RL is basically the same as SRL, however, the scope of actions is negotiated among two different self-regulating entities, be it student-student or teacher-student. Moreover, CO-RL has the below ingredients: emergent interactions, transitory, calibrated support, meditational properties with cues, promoting appropriation of self-regulatory skills and processes. Research in this regard focuses on interactions or dynamics between individuals and others when it comes to regulated learning.
Socially shared regulation of learning is a concept which allows a collective shared regulatory learning, usually used with the goal of reaching a shared end. Research regarding this concept usually focuses on co-dependent SRL knowledge, beliefs and processes, in addition to co-constructed planning, monitoring, evaluating and strategy regulation processes.
Table 1: Differences among SRL, Co-RL and SSRL (Hadwin, et al, 2011)
Research on SRL;
Hadwin et al. (2001) chose to elaborate abundantly on the research issues in regulated learning. We will start with the major research issues in self-regulated learning; they are:
Social support in SRL research
Modeling is known to encourage and foster better self-regulated learning; therefore researchers would focus on effectiveness of coping models, mastery models or no models at all on certain skills acquisition for example.
Scaffolding which is basically providing needed support to learners which allows them to better self regulate. Research in this field usually focuses on the effectiveness of fixed and adaptive scaffolding on students’ conceptual knowledge, meta-cognition and study procedures etc …
Other forms of support like those given to learners by peers, teachers, family members can facilitate SRL processes, since they are used as strategies part of learners’ meta-cognitive thinking and self-monitoring and control. Some research regarding this kind of social support tackled the effectiveness of external support, like help seeking, etc … a study on PALS by Sporer and Brunstein (2009) in Hadwin et al. (2011) is a good example on it. Another research focus is the one on multi-faceted SRL intervention, and it examines the effectiveness of this intervention of a holistic nature. The third line of research would be examining features, factors and characteristics of contexts that support development of SRL.
Tasks and pedagogical contexts for SRL: Four trends in task contexts when researching SRL
Research on social influences on SRL;
Harnessing the potential of computer technologies for designing learning contexts and environments;
Studying individual learning tasks, although collaborative one exist amply;
And finally, research usually spans elementary school to university students.
The type of data collected in SRL research relies heavily on self-report questionnaires and performance measures at one point in time, like for example the MSLQ which will be dealt with in the following tasks.
Now we will deal with research on Co-RL, following the same pattern used above with SRL.
There are three main research categories dealing with CO-RL; they are:
Examining interactions and transactions in speech as learners move toward independent self-regulated learning;
Research on shared meta-cognition whereby emphasis is placed on peers mediating each other’s meta-cognitive and cognitive actions, rather than mere monitoring and controlling the regulated process for a shared goal;
This line of research focuses on interactions and processes through which social environments affects co-regulated learning.
Tasks and pedagogical contexts for Co-RL research:
Empirical examination of task types from individual to joint or shared task activities;
Research in covers elementary to college education, as mentioned before for SRL;
Co-regulation in research is not considered or limited only to interactions between parents and children or any kind of pair interactions.
Regulation constructs in Co-RL research: it is noteworthy that co-regulation could be considered as episodes of learning where multiple group members verbally contribute to content processing, as well as, individual regulation but could be dominated by one member. CO-RL requires then purposeful mediation of planning, monitoring and evaluating.
Regarding data collection and CO-RL research they are dominated by discourse data and observation of inter-individual dialogue and transactions between dyads. The use of micro-analysis of data discourse, between dyads, helps in unveiling mechanisms and strategies which are used to support regulation of learning.
Lastly, when it comes to socially shared regulation of learning or SSRL, the reference is made to processes with which learners regulate in collective manner in a collective activity.
Research in SSRL is divided into two main streams. The first studies the role of regulation processes in group problem solving without specifying various regulatory processes. Whereas the second stream does the same but with a specific focus on sharing perspectives, like for example shifts in ownership from individual to a group, therefore stressing on the position of social factors in collective regulation of learning.
When it comes to tasks and pedagogical contexts in SSRL, it is important to note that collaborative learning tasks which are a major part of SSRL, should involve construction of a shared understanding when interaction happens between group members. Those have to remain committed to collaboration with common shared goals and common problem solving techniques. On another note, working together suggests that the task understanding happened in co-constructed manner, and that the common goal would be reached as well like in SRL and Co-RL through meta-cognitive monitoring, control of motivation, cognition and behavior as well.
Finally, data collection and analysis in SSRL, unlike Co-RL research, is done on a macro-analytic or combination approach which is meant to understand both the context and the evolution of regulated learning over time. Process oriented data is usually used to examine social processes of motivation in socially challenging collaborative tasks. Another type of data is videotaped collaborations where emerging group self-regulatory processes over time. SSRL research examines congruence in individual presentations of potentially shared regulatory processes or components. One useful questionnaire, to examine students’ individual self-reports of social challenges experiences during group work, is the one called Adaptive Instrument for the Regulation of Emotions.
Challenges facing research in the regulation of learning; This chapter identified five challenges facing research on self-regulated learning; they are the following:
Research needs to well define SRL, CO-RL and SSRL;
Researchers need to clarify which constructs are they studying;
Lack of research on investigating social aspects in the regulation of learning at some points in time, for individuals and groups alike;
Regulation implies adaption and/or change over time;
Collaborative learning can allow better study of SRL, CO-RL and SSRL.
Article two: Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on Assessment and Intervention (Boekarts & Corno, 2005)
Some researchers deal with self-regulation as a general disposition that students bring into the classroom, some others think of self-regulation as a property of the person in situation, and that self-regulatory skills develop through experience within and across situations. We will be focusing on three major issues in the article written by Boekarts and Corno (2005); the issues consist of the different approaches and trends in self-regulation, then we move to discuss the different instruments and approaches to assessing self-regulation, and lastly, we discuss the various types of interventions to support self-regulated learning. This article emphasizes the absence of one simple definition of SR constructs. However, SR is usually defined through different models, which share some common concepts and might differ in others. Below is a brief demonstration commonalities and differences among SR models:
Corno emphasizes volitional aspects of SR, whereas, Winne emphasizes cognitive aspects of SR, on the other hand, McCaslin and Hickey stress on the socio-cultural aspects of SR. Pintrich (2000) in Boekarts and Corno (2005) stated that most SR models agree on the following: self-regulated learners are actively and constructively engaged in the process of meaning generation, and they do adapt their thoughts, feelings and actions based on their set goals; second, biological, developmental , contextual and individual differences could inhibit or support regulation of learning. In the following section, we will discuss the approaches and purposes of Self-regulated learning.
Approaches to self-regulation;
Since self-regulated learning should lead to pre-set goals, goal pursuit should entail a complex path including engagement, and disengagement. Moreover, different types of goals can interact and change with time. Boekaerts (1997) discussed that learners usually have two priorities in mind, the first being to achieve growth goals, knowledge oriented, and the second priority is to maintain their emotional well-being, as much as possible. Boekaerts spoke of a balance which usually students thrive for; this balance includes both growth goals and emotional well-being. He also discussed two processes for the purposeful direction of action, as he calls them. They are:
Top-Down Self-Regulation: this mastery/growth process is usually characterized by self-chosen goals, which increase academic resources. The process is fueled by motivation embodied in personal interest, values, expected satisfaction and rewards. At the start, not all students will engage in mastery goals, during the first expose to the task. Cues from the work environment affect students’ goals.
Bottom-Up Self-Regulation usually happens when self-regulation is triggered by cues from the environment. Goals are not present at the start; rather they are shaped as learners receive feedback or rewards. Following Boekaerts’ model, this suggests that students might become more preoccupied with their well-being, which means looking to redirect the distribution of resources at hand. Maintaining positive feelings becomes much more important that the growth goals. In such cases, students resort to different strategies to deal with the decline in their well-being; some of these strategies could be seeking social support and problem solving, considered adaptive, or some other strategies which could be considered maladaptive such as physical aggression, avoidance, denial etc …
Volitional strategies are usually called upon when the need to stay on or off task arises. These strategies could be time and resources management, prioritizing goals and marking completed tasks. In any case, those associated with emotions are usually qualified as maladaptive and those associated with cognition are claimed to be adaptive.
The next section will discuss the different instruments which are supposed to measure self-regulated learning. They range from strategy self-reports to learning diaries.
Instruments to assess self-regulation
Self-report Questionnaires: These questionnaires usually use reliable Likert scale questions to assess the frequency of reported use of strategy, like for instance the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1993) which measures cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies in a quantitative approach, which requires a large sample size.
Observations of Overt Behavior: they deal with ongoing actions, where specific strategies are chosen to be studied, whether individually or as interactions in a group. They need a sampling plan, an observation coding system and a scoring procedure. Usually resulting data is rich and could be qualitative and/qualitative.
Interview Evidence: Usually they are structured or semi structured interviews. Mainly the aim behind these is to gather information on teachers´ and students´ experiences during SRL sessions. Participants will have to identify and label their own actions during a provided task, although interviews are supposedly qualitative, however, researchers can draw quantitative data from them.
Think Aloud Protocols: Students usually report thoughts, feelings, self-regulated strategies, during the process of solving a problem or while completing an assignment.
Traces of Mental Events and Processes: This is done by examining students´ work or some samples. Students´ work usually indicate a big deal on the self-regulated learning process and giving evidence on how students differ between important task traits and minor details.
Situational Manipulations: Exploring self-regulation strategies could be done through a complex computer simulation system.
Recording Student Motivation Strategies as they work: This allows students to share their developing task appraisals and feelings with the researchers, in action.
Keeping Diaries: Students can write down their meta-cognitive, motivation and volition strategies. Diary entries can be analyzed in a qualitative manner following a specified coding system. Diaries also depend on the ability of students to write, which is not the same among different students, which makes the process a bit unreliable.
Self-regulation Interventions: Second Generation Classroom Interventions based on Socio-culturalism
Classroom teachers are key agents in enhancing a self-regulation intervention or ruin it. Their expertise on the job is developed away from what they learn in education courses as pre-service teachers. Examples of such interventions are:
Palincsar and Brown (1984) developed a cognitive procedure called reciprocal teaching. Teachers take the role of learning monitors then they pass on the role to other students.
Computer Mediated Learning Environments: computer software supports learning through hints and feedback, closely related to adaptive instruction, which allows scaffolding for students. Later, students become independent soloists, and develop their own self-regulation processes.
Collaborative Learning in Classrooms: Collaborative jigsaws were used by Brown and Campione (1994) with students groups in ecological sciences. Usually collaborative learning allows the better achievers to practice peer teaching and deepen their understanding, while, low achievers benefit from peer understanding of the knowledge in question.
Before coming to Finland and learn that there is something called self-regulation in learning, I had always been trying to regulate myself. That is in every single manner. Be polite, walk with straight legs, smile at people even when I’m sad, don’t get mad now, suck it up and move on. Regulation meant to me to always go against how you feel like going. Pretty much like how Bree Van Dekamp portrays this stoic woman who no matter what she faces in life she will smile and go on with whatever she was doing before hearing the bad news. Some people can do it easily; some others have to invest so much in them in order to regulate their emotions. But in any case, it seems that self-regulation is needed in education as much as it is needed outside the educational framework. In education and from the articles above it is obvious how regulation can be employed, however, in the professional domain, I would be scared to know that a doctor could not handle his emotions and collapsed, or he quit during an operation because he felt he is not motivated enough. Regulation then is not a commodity or a delicacy which one can live without.
It starts with forethought, then acting then monitoring. It sounds really simple, but it is not in fact. SRL is fully twisted with so many interactions, which are visible in the triadic relationship above, and some other deep interactions which cannot be depicted in the triadic relationship, but they nonetheless exist and affect the process of self-regulation.
Social aspect of regulation
I will be discussing the research on SRL part. I was particularly interested in one of the challenges facing research on SRL. The challenge is the lack of research or interest in exploring the social aspects of learning regulation on the individual and the societal level.
Yes the social aspect for me is very important. I am a kind of person whose group work inclinations are really affected by how much social interaction, positive one, can be made within a group. I do not think someone should be forced to work with others in the first place. Why should a student spend so much energy on regulating his emotions in order for him to be able to work in group, while he can spend less time and energy on regulating, and more on actually performing the task itself? Yes, people do need to work in groups, but learning in groups is one of the concepts which I will always doubt, even though it can be effective on the practical and outcome level. Just to be clear, my concern is purely societal.
Students need to be able to choose to work in groups or individually. Education needs to be tailored to students’ needs and fitting all students under collaborative learning umbrella does not mean they will not get wet, neither would standing under another umbrella. I can accept that politics is negotiable, debatable; but when it comes to learning and constructing knowledge, I still do not see the point of collaboration in learning. Partnerships are filled with sacrifices, and compromises; for me group work is a kind of partnership where unnecessary compromises are made. I can commit to being single and avoid making relationships sacrifices, but it seems that it is a luxury I cannot afford in my own education any more.
This post took lots of time to get done, as I am not sure still, that I am doing the right thing. However, since I am repeating the entire solo course work, I am working this time with much less emotions than before, which is good because I could at least accept the concepts I am talking about. In the coming tasks, I will be using less bullet points and integrate everything into a big essay. In general, I am happy I got the chance to redo the entire work so my attitude would change.