The main purpose of a dig is to encourage students to dig beneath the surface of the readings and other learning materials such as audiobooks. Towards this end digs are formatted like a discussion.
Over a 5 day period you’ll need to submit at least one comment and at least one question based on the learning materials for the upcoming session 3 on self-regulation.
You'll need to make sure to read the previously posted discussion points to see if your question needs to be changed. You’ll also need to keep checking the discussion even if you have already posted a comment and a question: I expect everyone to be up-to-date on the discussion issues when you come to class.
Remember you'll be posting at least one question and one comment (or at least two posts for each person). You can post anytime between September 6 through midnight of September 10.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
The most meaningful piece I took from our learning materials is that self-regulation can lead to increased motivation. This is an indirect way to encourage motivation. This is such an intriguing thought to me because self-regulation can be encouraged and supported (as we learned a bit about in Cognitive Psychology), and from what little I know of motivation, it is much harder to identify and draw out direct intrinsic motivation than to encourage and support self-regulation. I am curious as we explore this topic to see how self-regulation and motivation are connected.
I enjoyed learning about Zimmerman's model of self-regulation and how all three phases are essential in becoming a good self-regulator. Learning about the model in the audiobook and being prompted to think about it through the lens of a teacher was helpful because I could identify the phases of lesson planning throughout the model. The forethought phase being the lesson planning, the performance phase being the actual teaching of the lesson, and the self-reflection phase being reflecting on the outcomes of the lesson.
Self-efficacy and self-regulation are described as closely related learning concepts. Regardless of backgrounds, ages, and modes of learning, to be both self-efficacious and self-regulated, an individual has to be independent because the individual must be responsible for his or her own learning. Yet, too few teachers promote SRL, which could lead one to think that too few teachers foster independence. The two simple solutions to increase learner independence and teacher promotion of SRL could be 1) incorporating choice as Wolters mentions and 2) the use of the three phases described by Zimmerman.
How many teachers actually know how to incorporate choice and the three phases within their curricula? Are the teachers at fault, for a lack of a better phrase, for not better preparing students to be self-regulated or should we trace this lacking back to teacher preparation courses or even how teachers were taught as students? Do teaching SE and SR lie only in the hands of teachers because what if we were to consider that other environmental factors makeup the model of and the instruction of self-efficacy and self-regulation? Is there a lack of SRL in the classroom because there is a great deal of emphasis placed on standardized testing in the U.S., which forces this notion to control students’ every learning aspect?
Hi Kristina, personally, I think that the lack of incorporating self-regulation techniques into lesson plans stems from a combination of the reasons you mentioned. Along with state standards in content areas there are also specific district mandated procedures/expectations teachers are expected to abide by. Therefore, I don't feel as though there is enough time in a class period to engage students in the three phases of self-regulation proposed by Zimmerman. Being that there is not enough time, my question is, are students supposed to be undergoing all three phases of the self-regulation model during one class period, or would the three phases be just as beneficial if they were divided up throughout two or three class periods?
Dear Classmates,
If you recall, during our last class I asked if anybody in the class was familiar with the concept of cultural capital. Since all of you answered no, I would like to include this summary of the theory for three reasons. First, I think it gives an extra dimension to our discussions when we look at “autonomy”, and “competence.” Second, because I am not a “ practicing educator in a traditional school setting” this is one of my theoretical goggles that I use to look at our reading, rather than the so-called “practical lens.” And finally the third, I will miss next session so I wont be able to explain where I was coming from in my comments in the knowledge dig.
P.S. Sorry, I did not meant to burden you with even more reading during an already packed week.
Cultural Capital at Glance.
Pierre Bourdieu developed the concept of cultural capital in the early 1960’s in order to help address a particular empirical problem-- the fact that “ Economic obstacles are not sufficient to explain” disparities in the educational attainment of children from different social classes (Bourdieu & Passeron 1979, p.8). Bourdieu argued that, above and beyond economic factors, “cultural habits and…dispositions inherited from” the family [the cultural capital] are fundamentally important to school success (Bourdieu & Passeron 1979, p.14). In particular, he asserted that cultural “habits and dispositions” comprise a resource capable of generating “profits”; they are potentially subject to monopolization by individuals and groups; and, under appropriate conditions, they can be transmitted from one generation to the next (Lareau and Weininger 2003).
Bourdieu believed that any “competence” becomes a capital insofar as it facilitates of appropriation a society’s “cultural heritage” but is unequally distributed, thereby creating opportunities for “exclusive advantages”. In societies characterized by a highly differentiated social structure and a system of formal education, these “advantages” largely stem from the institutionalization of “criteria of evaluation” in schools--that is, standards of assessment—which are favorable to children from a particular class or classes (Bourdieu 1977).
According to Bourdieu (1986), cultural capital exists in three distinct forms. In its “embodied” form, cultural capital is a “competence” or skill that cannot be separated from its “bearer” (that is, the person who “holds” it). As such, the acquisition of cultural capital necessarily presupposes the investment of time devoted to learning and/or training (19For example, a college student who studies art history has gained a competence, which, because it is highly valued in some institutional settings, becomes an embodied form of cultural capital. Additionally, Bourdieu suggests that the objects themselves may function as a form of cultural capital, insofar as their use or consumption presupposes a certain amount of embodied cultural capital. For example, a philosophy text is an “objectified” form of cultural capital since it requires prior training in philosophy to understand. Finally, in societies with a system of formal education, cultural capital exists in an “institutionalized” form.
This is to say that when the school certifies individuals’ competencies and skills by issuing credentials, their embodied cultural capital takes on an objective value. Thus, for example, since persons with the same credentials have a roughly equivalent worth on the labor market, educational degrees can be seen to be a distinct form of cultural capital. Because they render individuals interchangeable in this fashion, Bourdieu suggests that institutionalization performs a function for cultural capital analogous to that performed by money in the case of economic capital
Nevertheless, despite the similarities between cultural and economic capital, Bourdieu also recognized that they differ from one another in important respects. In particular, he noted that the legitimation of inequality in cultural capital occurs in a manner that is highly distinct from the legitimation of economic inequality. Despite the fact that cultural capital is acquired in the home and the school via exposure to a given set of cultural practices—and therefore has a social origin--it is liable to be perceived as inborn “talent,” and its holder “gifted,” as a result of the fact that it is embodied in particular individuals. Moreover, because the school system transforms “inherited” cultural capital into “scholastic” cultural capital, the latter is predisposed to appear as an individual “achievement” (Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. 2003) For example, scholars have demonstrated that middle-class parents typically talk more to infants and young children than do working-class or poor parents. As a result, middleclass children often have larger vocabularies when they enter school, and subsequently score more highly on standardized tests measuring verbal skills (Hart and Risley 1999; Lareau 2003). Nevertheless, teachers, parents, and students themselves are likely to interpret the differences in test scores as a matter of natural talent or individual effort.
Bourdieu’s arguments concerning cultural capital became a very popular because they vociferously challenged the widespread view of modern schooling as a mobility engine that promotes or demotes people through the class structure simply on the basis of their talents and efforts. Indeed, from Bourdieu’s highly critical vantage point, modern systems of schooling are far more adept at validating and augmenting cultural capital inherited from the family than they are at instilling it in children who enter the institution with few or none of the requisite dispositions and skills. Consequently, he maintained, the educational systems of modern societies tend to channel individuals towards class destinations that largely (but not wholly) mirror their class origins. Moreover, they tend to elicit acceptance of this outcome (i.e. legitimation), both from those who are most privileged by it and those who are disfavored by it (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977).
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. -C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Richard Nice (tr.). Sage Publications, London.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1979) The Inheritors: French Students and their Relations to Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J. G. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press, New York,
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1999) Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Brookes Publishing, Baltimore.
Lareau, A. (2003) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003) Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment. Theory and Society, 567-606.
Joszef -- thank you for that very interesting explanation of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital. I find it makes for an interesting extension of much of Dewey's postulations. He wrote a lot about the social nature of education. He felt that communication is necessary for learning to take place. Further, he believed that education can be formal and informal and it includes renewal of thoughts, perspectives, beliefs, ideals, actions, thoughts, and emotions.
He wrote about life in social groups, tribes, and communities that carries on despite the ending of an individual life…this is not because the group is simply biologically populated, but because the group transmits the culture “social fabric." And this term is what I thought of when I read your entry. This communication is the basis for the transmission (common, communication, community) – by communication he means a shared interaction (like a conversation) and not simply exchanging understood words (like taking an order from a superior).
Education is the means we use to sustain our values and transmit our society – we need reflection and comparison (elders teaching younger, etc…). Interaction between people and the environment is “educative.” School is not the only means for education. We learn through meaningful experience. We, as a population, as a society are continually re-adaptating (similar to Piaget’s schema theory). We transmit portions of a complex society that simply cannot be transmitted through casual interactions through education.
And, even though we teach in a formal setting, education needs to remain connected to social life. This is not referred to as capital, but I believe this social fabric is akin to cultural capital in some ways.
I just finished reading the Zimmerman 2008 article on SRL. It, and the SRL opening audiobook, has helped to bring together much of what I have learned in other classes. I am finding this topic extremely interesting. Just today in my class, I reminded the students that they no longer have a home-room teacher to look after them and are now on their own as far as managing their learning is concerned. Not a formal introduction to SRL, but a hint.
I now recognize that SRL is the root of what many counselors teach struggling college freshmen (study habits, note-taking, time management, etc.) At Foothill College, they have tried teaching remedial math with a teacher-counselor team. I am told by one of the counselors (Janet Sprybook) that they have been very successful. SRL is not usually part of any math textbook that I know of, but maybe it should be.
I am a little concerned about using think-aloud as an experimental method. I realize that it provides an insight into the learning process that no other after-action report can do, but, when the learning process is moving along apace, the think-aloud process, if imposed, can be an impediment and detrimental. I would be careful about using thin-aloud as a measurement technique.
The concept of a coping model as an instructional technique is appropriate for me in my math class. Last semester, I had prepared progressive PowerPoint slides to demonstrate problem solutions: it's more efficient, faster and more legible. As a course critique, I asked the students to tell me what I could have done better. They told me that more problems on the board, in real time, would be better. I think they wanted to see me think aloud, so they could see the thought process. that's think-aloud in reverse.
I suspect Kristina is correct about there being a lot of control over content, but maybe only in K-12. I do not see that much in college except where the course is one of a prescribed multi-course curriculum like my math class. But I still manage to spice it up with side trips where I can. Just last night I caught the last part of Randy Pausch's "last lecture". He was given a completely unbounded charter by the Provost of Carnegie-Mellon to set up his media project training course; in turn he gave his students infinitely wide latitude in their choice of projects. That is probably an extreme example.
Hi Navdeep,
In response to your question about whether or not students undergo all three phases of Zimmerman's SRL model in one class meeting, my understanding is that once students have been presented opportunities to explore the model through creative lesson plans and carefully constructed learning outcomes, the three phases of the model will become inherent. Therefore, using the SRL model in any phase would be something that students would can to adopt as part of their own learning process no matter what individual task is assigned. The reinforcement of the SRL phases as a metacognitive strategy may differ among students based on their personal motivation and ability to monitor their own learning. I would imagine depending on the age group, it may take several lessons or units to increase and hopefully ensure student adoption of this SRL model.
The example provided in Wolters’ discussion of self-consequating as a strategy for the regulation of motivation suggested that students self impose consequences and/or rewards for their behavior in persisting through a particular task. Is there any connection between self-consequating and the extrinsic reward system often used in classrooms to entice students to complete tasks? If so, is it possible that students who use this method to regulate their motivation have been conditioned to do so as a result of their experience with classroom reward systems? Does any else see this as a plausible connection?
Hi Navdeep,
I don't think that Zimmerman intends for each phase to be accomplished each class period. It's similar to a unit plan - first you hook your students, then you work on the short-term goals answers the overarching questions, and then you finish up with the evaluation. Even within units there are smaller goals that the three phases can occur. For instance, let's say you want your students to read a short story. First you get the students to foreshadow and think about how to approach the story, then they actually read the story, and then they follow up with some kind of evaluation after reading the story. I think that the three phrases can be incorporated in any length of time just as long as they are incorporated.
I am really enjoying these articles as they reinforce many of the chapters in the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise 9used in the Creativity course). The inclusive definition of SRL as presented in the Zimmerman article states "the degree to which students are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process." When looking at SRL through a retrospective lens, many experts can clearly define/describe their preferred learning processes. My question what are we doing in K-12 education to model and teach students to do the same. Again, much like self-determination, SRL speaks to our delivery of instruction and I don't think we are actively addressing it in teacher education.
A further question: in the 2002 Zimmerman article, he states: that self-discipline has remained challenging for most students over the past century. Why hasn't research in this area impacted the classroom?
Are emulative learning and social feedback, as referred to in the Zimmerman & Kitsantas article, a seed of metacognition and self-explanation?
Hi,
We havew a class at USF called College Success that incorporates some of the SRL material into the class. Interesting only after students (business majors) have been put on academic probation do we require that they take the class. It is a 1 credit class that meets once per week.
Should this be a required class at the university level or should it be taught earlier? At what level should it be taught?
Hi Mark...That is interesting. You might have a very good point. Maybe that should be a required class for all freshmen.
To the rest of you...
I agree with Terry. This information of SR has helped integrate a lot of information learned in other classes. It was especially good at connecting cog psych which seems like so long ago, but was only last semester. I think the information on incorporating SR strategies in the classroom is very important, but there is little time to do it, and teachers aren't really trained on it. I liked the idea of keeping learning diaries and setting goals. I am wondering if the goals need to be short-term, long-term, daily, per assignment, or a combination of all or some of those? Also, like Navdeep, do all the stages need to be at the same time or can they be spread out? I try to help my students during clean-up time by giving them an approximate time that they should spend on each assignment. Does that help or hinder them? Should I make it an activity that they plan out their time on their own or keep modeling and then let them try? I would be interested in incorporating SRL strategies more into my classroom.
The readings for this week were pretty good in general, but I have a problem with the Wolters article. Granted, he is admitting that the “difference between the process of motivation and the regulation of motivation can become somewhat fuzzy” (p.191), but this disclaimer is just too weak for me.
Coming from a theoretical perspective informed by Bourdieu, Wolters arguments seems very simplistic to me to say the least. Following Boakaerts (1992) distinctions on page 191, I have a really hard time to believe that there is a ”real” distinctive line, one that can be detected and measured, between the areas of subjective and active control. And the same is true for Kuhl (1989) executional and emotional/motivational preferences. Going further, there are just way to many assumptions and perhaps’ in Wolters proposition, thus rendering it to not much more than a valid observation of a snapshot of reality explained in a vacuum—free from all possible interference that could jeopardize the author’s explanation.
Even if I believe in the validity of Wolters argument, I have issues with its use for practical application. Because Wolters avoids addressing the problem of the “original mover”, his theory needs a level of some “unspecified level of motivation” in “that it may trigger students motivational regulation strategy” (p.191); otherwise it might not show up at all.
When I combine these observations with Wolters own suggestion, that there is both a curvilinear and reciprocal relationship between student motivation and motivational regulations--a relationship which favors those at the middle of the curve--the most I can see is a theory that perhaps, if all conditions are meet can help those who are already good to become better.
Any thoughts?
P.S Does not Wolters sounds like a good financial planner for those with plenty of cultural capital?
I enjoyed the second part of the Wolters article. Particularly the section on Strategies for the Regulation of Motivation. I think we can all relate to self consequating and goal oriented self-talk. I thought the self handicapping was humorous. I remember frat brothers from my undergraduate years who would regularly get high before an exam to help explain their poor performance due primarily to a lack of preparation.
Putting a label on a behavior doesn't prove anything but it does make us feel like we understand it better.
Attribution control is similar to self reflection. It is interesting to note that self reflection that isn't honest feedback is no better and perhaps worse than no feedback. I think that the thought that reflection should be more on the learning PROCESS and less about the learning outcome would encourage more honest feedback.
So there's one big question (is that elephant) in the 2002 Zimmerman & Kitsantas article. What amount of coping is helpful in modeling and what amount is not? I just know that for me as a learner, when I see models of people coping poorly--that gets in the way of my learning and frustrates me. (Not to mention that it makes me feel like my time has been wasted.) I'm wondering how much of a spectrum there from flailing to coping to mastery--and how does that spectrum matter in terms of modeling? Also, does model type have an interaction effect with degree of prior knowledge? (Is coping better for novices, but mastery better for more experienced and knowledgeable students?)
Shannon,
You bring up an excellent point about the difference in coping skills between novices and experts. In an article by Zimmerman and Schunk about motivation and SRL, they state that "poor learners are reluctant to seek help in a dependent manner because it can expose their limitations" (p. 4). I think this is a key phrase because many poor learners are at the novice stage during which limitations are high and coping skills are low. If proper coping skills are modeled by those at the master stage, then with time and experience, the poor learners transition to become better learners as they enter the mastery stage and their coping skills improve. The masters have to have some level understanding about the insecurity that certain novices have about their limitations in knowledge and ability. Could it be that when you see poor coping skills, they are from novices who simply haven't experienced as much as you have?
This is something to think about in mainstreamed classrooms. There are students of varying abilities in those type of classroom settings - some with more prior knowledge than others. When those who have more prior knowledge (perhaps the masters) are exposed to poor coping skills from those who are more of the novice stage, could their learning experiences be hindered because they also become frustrated such as yourself? They may also become distracted and in a way misguide their attention. Then again, would more mastered students be so easily distracted or would they have the ability to cope themselves by dismissing the distractions?
To juxtapose the situation, the more novice students in mainstreamed classrooms could be more reluctant to seek help not necessarily because they are poor learners but because they are insecure of exposing their limitations and, therefore, have weaker coping skills. This could also hinder their learning experiences.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: (Re) Theory, Research, and Applications (1st ed., p. 432). Lawrence Erlbaum.(Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007)
I think that SRL is more like a continuum - when expertise is high we tend to be good at SRL - but when we are acting novices about something, we may be poor at SRL.
It also amazed me how often we tell our students to "study" and not teach our students "how" to do these things. Especially at the secondary level. Then when you add motivation into the mix, the dance becomes even more complex.
In college, the processes of SDT and SRL and motivation are key to success. I just feel that the ironic thing is that students are often ever taught how to do these things - they just seem to work for or fall in place for those who are highly motivated. I think that Dr. Mitchell said it in the audio book - you have to have some motivation to be able to lead be SRL.
Hi everyone,
Two aspects of the readings are very interesting to me. One is teaching self-regulation skills as discussed in the Zimmerman (2002) article and the other is related to the model Matthew created that had no arrows (!)for Wolters' (2002) aspects of regulation of motivation. Zimmerman (2002) said "few teachers effectively prepare students to learn on their own" (p. 69), then listed six SRL strategies that students seldom learn about. Applying this to practice, Zimmerman is suggesting teachers could do more of the following: give students opportunities to learn and practice decision-making, goal setting, self-evaluation, competence estimation, accessing their beliefs about learning, and seeking help.
In the Wolters' (2002) article, eight aspects of regulation of motivation are described. To summarize, Wolters described the impact of these aspects on the regulation of motivation. I did a brief content analysis for which aspects were found to improve motivation, cognitive engagement, and achievement, as described in the article. Only two, self-consequating and efficacy management, positively affecting them.
Then I considered how these two aspects matched the skills Zimmerman suggested teachers teach. I discovered that self-consequating and efficacy management strategies can be accomplished when students learn and practice the SRL skills outlined by Zimmerman. Students self-consequate in conjunction with decision-making, self-evaluation, competence estimation, and seeking help. Students manage their efficacy when they set goals, engage in efficacy self-talk, and use defensive pessimism to avoid failure outcomes.
This is great news for teachers! What excites me is the proposal that students can learn to employ some very powerful but straight-forward regulatory tools across the curriculum that will ultimately help them succeed at school and in life.
Mary, I agree that in teacher education we fall short of teaching regulatory skills to our pre-service teachers. But this problem in community college (CC) may be similar to that in K-12. What I am required to cover in articulated courses is content-driven, and I have no latitude for content change unless I re-articulate the course. (I get to test this assumption as I embark on articulating our Technology for Teachers course with SJSU and CSU Monterey Bay later this term.)
As the movement toward basic skills increases and improves, and because Gavilan has a successful basic skills program, some instructors are considering partnering with the basic skills counselors and instructors to weave SRL skill development into their courses.
My question is how can I more efficiently and effectively impact the content of our articulated courses to teach SRL strategies? It is great I can imbed them in several courses, but what we look for at the teacher education CC level is transfer rates. If more students experience academic success in community college, they might have more belief in their ability to succeed in getting a Bachelor's degree.
Kristina,
I agree to be both self-efficacious and self-regulated, the individual has to be independent and feel that they have choices. The more I read the more I understand how important the role of autonomy and choice is in creating a learning environment that motivates students to seek knowledge for the sake of learning rather then for the grade.
I also agree when you say too few teachers incorporate choice and SLR strategies into the curricula. It is clear that teachers can and do play a large role in the students ability to acquire SRL strategies.
I am interested in knowing more about the role culture plays in the shaping a students sense of self-efficacy and ability to be a SRL. I have noticed some differences in my students based on their cultural background's.
I found the Zimmerman (2002) article, exciting and I want to learn more about teaching students to be self-regulated learners.
Dionne I am interested in hearing more about how you will test the assumptions and re-articulate your course.
Kimi,
Your comments about high and low expertise being related to proficiency at SRL remind me again of Hirsch's statements about reading proficiency being related to high and low expertise with respect to the content in a reading passage.
To clarify this possible parallel:
Hirsch states that readers with high expertise in a content area show greater reading proficiency while readers with low expertise in a content area (novices) who low reading proficiency. This change in proficiency can be seen changing across different reading selections, depending on an individual's varying level of prior knowledge/expertise.
Perhaps proficiency with SRL similarly depends on our prior levels of motivation in different areas.
This possibility raises the question of whether or not another parallel might exist--namely that high SRL in area A and simultaneously low SRL in area B are the result of different levels of prior motivation in the two areas. Hmmmmm
E. D. Hirsch (2006). The Knowledge Deficit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
I feel like there is a common theme of knowing that SRL strategies are important, but not necessarity being taught. This stems back to Dionne's and Mark's college courses and Kimi stating teachers tell students to study, but don't teach them how. This is an important point. Should teachers be required to learn how to teach study habits and SRL strategies and should it be required for students to learn these things. I don't think I was ever taught these things. How did we learn them on our own and why can't others just sort of figure it out? That sounds kind of harsh, but if you are doing something and its not working, wouldn't you try something else to see if that would work (trial and error)?
Hi Dionne,
I think it would be great if teacher education programs emphasized the importance of imparting self-regulatory techniques to our students but I feel that even Zimmerman falls short of this in his self-regulatory overview article. In the introduction he mentioned that he would give an overview of methods for guiding students to learn on their own, but in the conclusion he just states that self-regulatory strategies can be learned from instruction and modeling by parents, teachers, coaches, and peers.
Note: If you leave the comment form to return to the published comments, you have to start your comment over.
But it worked out well, because when I did that, there were many new comments posted.
I am also thinking about the thread of including SRL early in college as a separate subject. On one hand, many freshmen would not need it, but, on the other hand most of my remedial math students would.
I am not at a point where I could put together some lesson plans to introduce the SRL plan, but I thought of a couple of items I can implement immediately. I am going to ask my students to include in their homework packages, that they submit on the days of midterms, a cover page consisting of a table of all the textbook sections, each with a checkmark to indicate homework complete, and with a number (1-5) to indicate their assessment of their ability to solve more problems similar to those of the section.
The intent is to have each student monitor their own progress in terms of homework, and to make an assessment of their self-efficacy.
Then, my question is how I am to assess the impact of the system. I suppose I could ask for a short assessment from each student near the end of the semester, but I would like something better.
The concept of SRL has been developing in the research field over several years now, but it is not widespread in the classroom. Is this another example of a disconnect between research and the classroom?
Navdeep,
I was thinking about your comment regarding looking at the 3-phase SR model through the lens of a teacher "... and being prompted to think about it through the lens of a teacher was helpful because I could identify the phases of lesson planning throughout the model. The forethought phase being the lesson planning, the performance phase being the actual teaching of the lesson, and the self-reflection phase being reflecting on the outcomes of the lesson." I was thinking that teachers need to go one step further and ensure that their instruction is student-centered enough so that the learner would engage in the same process as well. It would be challenging to say the least for a learner to establish learning goals, employ imagery, self-instructions, and focusing if the learning environment is overtly teacher-centered. It seems to relate directly back to choice and providing an autonomy supportive environment.
Gina-
I see your point about how people just don't get it...learning how to learn. But I did not finally learn how to learn until college when motivation (not to fail specifically) was really taken into consideration.
I really think that several of you have said it and I completely agree, we don't teach how to learn strategies. We just expect students to know how to learn. We tell them to "Go Study." "Memorize." But let's face it how I study may differ from how another successful student studies. As long as we prepare for the assessment and do well on it, what difference does the process make? This process becomes our trial and error. But sometimes the problem is not knowing where or rather WHEN to start preparing and things become overwhelming.
Navdeep and Kristina,
In response to your question, I truly think we (teachers) do have enough time to teach SRLS as well as increase independence and offer greater choice. The changes are truly to our instructional practice not to the curriculum. I think it is a case of not knowing "how" to implement & incorporate the strategies into both our lessons and instruction. I, like you both, believe it goes back to teacher education. Federal mandates require that teachers are classified as "highly qualified" based solely on content knowledge. No part of the criteria of being a "highly qualified" teacher in k-12 educ. addresses pedagogy. Teacher Ed programs are under the gun to quickly turn out qualified teachers under specific criteria. I think a huge variable is the ongoing need and demand for personnel. Unfortunately, I think what needs to happen is that some really terrific teachers need to leave the classroom and move into policy positions. This may be the only way to effect change on a broad level.
Gina,
I admire your candid question, but I do think your expectation may be too harsh (to use your word and no judgement implied). I think we have to remember that we are in academia and we love it. We are highly motivated to learn and as a result we do it well. If this were not the case, we would not be in a graduate program. It has been demonstrated that highly competent and highly motivated persons, such as yourself, demonstrate strong SRL. The truth is, students such as this will learn in spite of us. The question is how to increase motivation and strategy use and regulation in less competent and less motivated learners. I think we are in the front lines and we have to model, demonstrate, incorporate, and directly teach learning strategies. The question is, how do we embed it into our instruction as efficiently as effectively as possible?
Gina-
I agree that we often had to 'figure things out' on our own in school and were not taught strategies. If we struggled with understanding, perhaps we tried another method. That ability to recognize our own strengths and weaknesses allowed us to succeed in our educational system - to think and analyze. We have become doctoral graduate students, perhaps, because we have the type of intrinsic motivation that 'works' in our current educational system.
But are we trying to make people 'fit' better into a system that is broken by having to teach strategies, to motivate individuals in subjects that do not interest them?
I am trying to think back and remember what learning strategies I was taught and I cannot remember them. Perhaps they have been so ingrained into me that I have simply forgotten. Perhaps it comes down to 'know thyself.' I agree that SRL works for many people, and if we could teach self-regulating strategies to students, many students would have a better opportunity for academic success.
But shouldn't we be asking ourselves if academic achievement is even the proper goal for many people? Are we even asking the right question(s) about our educational system? Trying to help students who may never be academically successful in the current educational structure may be a waste of time and resources. Academics is certainly not the path for everyone.
Perhaps we should rethink what is important - why are we teaching certain subjects to everyone? Are 'academic' subjects really important for everyone to learn? What if we could revamp our entire educational system? If everyone could follow their passion, then would there be a need to worry about strategies of motivation?
Steve, your comments remind me of a pivotal experience I had at UOP, which addresses your last question.
In my first undergraduate semester, our psychology prof told us we were all the cream of the crop from our own high schools, and now here were, with all the other creams of the crop. He challenged us to find our way, to rise to the top of our game, and come to terms with what we loved to do; that doing what we loved would propel us through life. He encouraged us to draw on our talents to get through challenges.
Second year, in music history, we had a miserable assignment. Our final exam was to put a given set of 50 treatises, musical works, and composer dates on a timeline. The prof gave us 100 to memorize and we had one week. After being depressed for a day or so I recalled the psych prof's message. I love to sing, so I wrote a song of the timeline. I sang my way through the final and did very well. So, I regulated my motivation and learning, but I wouldn't have come to such a creative or personal solution without the prompts of my psych prof the year before.
I think something we can do for our students is to offer them tools and inspiration they can then personalize and use to persist. I don't have much control over what my students become, but my greatest hope is that they find some way of contributing to society in a way that is meaningful to them. From this perspective, motivation and regulation seem just as important out in the world as in any classroom.
Steve: I am glad that you raised this question of, do we really need or more specifically can afford a one size fits all educational system. Although I am always little cautious about going down on the road proposed by Plato “ the proper training to the proper person will bring proper satisfaction”, I agree that the current public school system is clearly broke. It is an outdated behemoth running on autopilot in accordance with its almost 200 years mission—to prepare individuals to the workplace at various levels. Its purpose is not to produce autonomy, or self-efficacy … for the everyone—not even for the majority-- therefore it does not promote autonomy…. Even research sanctioned by the same apparatus confirms that the most beneficial results of SRL, RM coaching appear at the middle of the curve, and have very little impact on the best or the worst. So what is this system doing? Further esteems the good, throws another freebee for the best, and raises the bar again, far beyond the reach for those who are struggle in schools?
Post a Comment