Revival – on a path to expertise

It’s time to revive my blog after many months of silence. I have been absorbed by my studies, and as blog postings have not been included in the tasks of the courses I’ve attended, I have been neglecting the blog simply due to having to prioritize things. Though, in hindsight, I think that blogging has been a good way to reflect my learning: writing about the things that you have learned or are currently processing, I’ve notices, has been a good way to check up on or verify your own understanding about the things you are learning – when putting your thoughts into words you realize what are the possible gaps in your understanding and what needs further processing.

Mentoring process from the mentor’s perspective

During this spring I as a second year LET student have been acting as a mentor for the first year students. Me and Daniel, my fellow 2nd year student, had six 1st year students in our mentoring group. The first meeting with them was earlier this year, in which we got to know each other, and also importantly, hear the mentees wishes about things they would like to know of and learn more. This was important as me and Daniel as mentors wanted to identify their needs and structure the mentoring process in accordance with those needs, the main objective being that the mentoring process would help the mentees in acquiring the information and skills they need on their path in developing their expertise.

Based on the mentees’ wishes and needs Daniel and me planned the following activities. We tried to make the activities varied to keep up the interest of the mentees, and also get them involved. That is, it would not be only me and Daniel who would be providing all the information, but we all would be exploring and building up knowledge together.

  Description and procedure Objectives
Jigsaw discussion on articles related to expertise A jigsaw discussion will be held in the classroom to introduce and discuss the central topics and findings within each of the articles assigned by the teacher. Both mentors and mentees  will expand their views on mentoring and expertise, and practice a jigsaw discussion design
Expert´s introduction to new technologies for education Technology expert Jari Laru will be invited to give a brief presentation on two tools with educational affordances. Mentees will gain insights on both hardware and software to exploit in educational contexts.
Mentees´ technological tools presentations Mentee dyads will present a technological tool of their choice and its applications to the field of education. Both mentors and mentees will widen their views on technological tools applied to education.
LET graduate testimonials and future career path alternatives LET graduate and PhD student Pavi Thangaperumal and LET graduate Antonella Conte will briefly introduce their current work and link it to their experience as graduates of the LET program. Mentees will have possible career paths showcased in words of LET experts both within and without the academy.
Reference manager software tutorial: Mendeley Mentors will present a tutorial on how to use the Mendeley reference manager software for research purposes. Mentees will be acquainted with a deeply useful tool for developing their own research.
Norssi school visit: innovative educational environments Mentees will visit the Norssi school grounds and have the opportunity of observing the educational environment design and other features of the UBIKO cell.

 

Before the visit, mentor Kaisa will give a presentation about Finnish educational system.

Mentees will see for themselves an ongoing effort of the Finnish educational system to enhance the learning process of school-age students.
Research in video games and education Mentor Daniel will introduce his research with an online presentation into video games and education. Mentees will broaden their perspectives on the application of games for educational purposes, and as a possible research orientation.
Research in adaptive expertise in the working life Mentor Kaisa will introduce her research with a presentation on adaptive expertise in the working life. Mentees will broaden their perspectives on expertise both in and out of the academy, and as a possible research orientation.

From a mentor’s perspective, the mentoring process is not only about giving, although you have to invest your time and resources in identifying the mentees’ needs, planning the activities to answer those needs, and make the practical arrangements. As a mentor you also receive, not only the joy of being able to help others, but also new information and rehearsal in your skills. I truly enjoyed the mentees’ as well as Jari’s technological presentations about different technological tools and their application in educational settings, as well as Pavi’s and Antonella’s presentations about future career opportunities after LET studies.

Instructional system design

Especially Antonella’s presentation about instructional system design (ISD) hit home because it is close to the thing I would want to do in my future career-wise. Basically, ISD is “a practice of creating instructional experiences which make the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient, effective, and appealing. The process consists broadly of determining the state and needs of the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some intervention to assist in the transition. Ideally, the process is informed by pedagogically (process of teaching) and andragogically (adult learning) tested theories of learning and may take place in student-only, teacher-led or community-based settings.”

Trendspotters_ISD Model (Medsker)

In my previous posts I have probably mentioned at least at some point that I would be interested in HR-related tasks and helping people develop their expertise. When listening to Antonella I realized that this is one way of doing it at the same time being able to make use of the know-how and skills learned in the LET studies as well as in working life. ISD is a process in which the need is analyzed and a solution is generated and implemented – phases very familiar to any type of project really. Also, it requires theoretical understanding of how people learn, and also how technological tools can be made use of in that – the things we have been taught during the LET studies.

Looking back at the studies I realized that we have actually carried out a project similar to the phases of ISD when we (a group of students) created a learning solution for a company that was shifting to team-based working and were faced with some challenges in that. But I will be writing about that project on another post later on..

Posted in Learning of Expertise | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peer mentoring in higher education

During the spring semester 2015 I have taken part in a mentoring process where the 2nd year LET students have acted as mentors and we 1st year students have been the mentees. This is what is commonly called peer mentoring or simply peer tutoring, which typically focuses on a more experienced or advanced student(s) helping less experienced  student(s). In peer mentoring the more experienced student helps a less experienced student to improve overall academic performance while at the same time the process supports mentors’ personal growth, and provides advice, support, and knowledge to the mentee (Colvin and Ashman, 2010).

I discussed my experiences of informal mentoring in work life in my post “Mentoring as a form of developing your expertise”. In that post I reflecting my experiences of when I was a young and inexperienced project manager at the start of my career, and received some valuable advice and help from the more experienced colleagues. Taking part this spring in a formal mentoring process, in which other students act as mentors, was an interesting and also a surprising experience. Compared to informal mentoring, in formal mentoring I felt that I’m responsible for fulfilling my role as a mentee in actively participating in the process. Also, the process itself was more reciprocal in that not only the mentees were the “receiving” party in it. In the peer mentoring process the student mentors and student mentees were equal in sharing thoughts, experiences and knowledge from different domains and thus contributing to our understanding and knowledge about what it means to be an expert in learning and educational technology.

Our mentoring process started in the beginning of the year when we in the first two meetings got to know each other better, discussed the mentoring  process, and thought of issues we would like to address during the process. In our group of three mentors and four mentees it was decided that the whole group would meet regularly. But in addition to that we also formed smaller sub-groups of one mentor and 1-2 mentees to ensure that a more close and personal relations would be formed between the mentor and mentee.

In the joint meetings of the big group we had presentation of the educational systems of our home countries. It was very interesting to hear about the educational systems, and realize how different they actually are. I started to appreciate the Finnish educational system all the more as it provides equal and many opportunities to all (compared to many other countries) which we Finns take more or less for granted.

In the smaller sub-group I had Pavi as my mentor, and Hany was the other mentee. Over a cup of coffee we have been discussing our thesis processes, our LET studies, experiences, expectations and goals, as well as emotions towards these. The discussion have provided valuable new perspectives on these issues, and help taking the next steps into attaining expertise.

Our mentoring group

On an outing – Pavi, me and Hany.

Peer mentoring roles, risks and benefits

According to a study about roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in higher education, Colvin and Ashman (2010) found that there are five specific roles of mentors: connecting link, peer leader, learning coach, student advocate, and trusted friend. A connecting link is a student that helps other students inside and outside of class to get involved with their campus and education. Mentors as peer leaders show leadership qualities in motivating and guiding their mentees. A learning coach helps students identify learning strengths and styles and achieve their potential. In the role of learning coach, peer mentors teach students important academic as well as life skills. The student advocate role is related to the peer mentor being a helper, mostly in being a liaison between the student and the instructors and helping the students with their academic and personal needs.

Colvin and Ashman’s (2010) study indicate that peer mentoring benefit both sides of the mentoring relationship. Mentors value being able to support, help out, or uplift the mentees. They also appreciate the chance of getting involved with others in the program and developing friendships through the mentoring process. Additionally, mentoring can allow mentors to reapply concepts into their own lives and help them become even better students themselves. Interesingly, in the study, majority of women’s comments focused on relationships, and the majority of men’s noted grades and overall academic performance, not just for the students they worked with but also for mentors themselves.

Mentees also considered having mentors beneficial in helping with their class work and connecting them to campus. The next most often expressed benefit for mentees was individual attention, on having a friend or someone to help them one on one.

Instructors, peer mentors, and students all saw some risk or challenge in maintaining a peer mentor relationship. Comments from mentors focused on their personal lives, interactions with students, and interactions with the instructors. Balancing both the specific requirements and personal desire to do well as mentors with time and other commitments was seen challenging. Mentors also felt that there is a risk of rejection if students didn’t accept them, or conversely, the students being too dependent on the mentor.

Mentees saw risks and challenges in working with a peer mentor through two aspects: the role the mentor was fulfilling and the relationship that occurred. Considering the role of the mentor, the mentees either worried about being too dependent about the mentor, or the mentor bothering them too much when they did not need help. Relationship challenges were seen as either not feeling the relationship close enough to enable open communication with the mentor, or the mentees were worried about favoritism.

Some thoughts about peer mentoring process

After having experienced peer mentoring process from the side of a mentee, and after reading Colvin and Ashman’s article, I realise that although I felt being responsible for being “a good mentee”, the mentors must feel even more responsible and perhaps even pressure to do well in their role as a mentor. Although I highlighted how the peer mentoring process is quite reciprocal in sharing thoughts, experiences, knowledge and even feelings, it’s still the mentees needs that are focused on, and that mentors need to be very sensitive in seeing what they are, even if the needs are not expressed explicitly.

I feel that mentoring process is a very delicate one. What I mean is that there needs to be a mutual trust and respect between the mentor and mentee, shared understanding of the goals, and commitment to the process. If any of these aspect fail, so are the chances of the whole mentoring process to fail.

Not wanting to sound too grave, I don’t want to end this post by discussion of the risks and challenges of the peer mentoring process, but instead I want to bring out one more aspect of the process. And that’s FUN. I think one key issue for the mentoring process to succeed is the aspect of fun, that is, that the process would feel enjoyable for both the mentee and the mentor. If both are enjoying the process, rather than concentrating on fearing if they are able to fulfill their roles, the chances are that both will benefit from the process.

Last but not least I want to thank Pavi for being a great mentor to us! And also Hany, I really enjoyed our discussions. Together we had a laugh, but also learned something during it. 😉

References:

Colvin, J. & Ashman, M. (2010). Roles, Risks, and Benefits of Peer Mentoring Relationships in Higher Education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121–134.

Posted in Learning of Expertise, Yleinen | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mentoring as a form of developing expertise

I remember myself years back as a young documentation project manager who had just started with the job. I had some previous knowledge about technical documentation and being a project member as I had worked as a technical writer for a couple of years, so I knew about the basics of what happens in a documentation project. However, I had no knowledge about all the responsibilities and tasks of a project manager.

At that time in our company we did not have any official competence transfer process, so there was no formal training for becoming a project manager. You just had to pick up the tasks and start doing them, and learn on the go, so to speak. If I was faced with tasks, processes, or problems I felt I could not cope with or solve by myself, I relied on the help from other more experienced project managers in the company, by asking them questions and their opinions. The more experienced project managers provided me with a lot of information or sources where to find answers, helped me in solving complex problems, and of course gave me the kind of emotional support so that I felt that I will manage and I’m doing the right things. During the first years this helped me to develop into a competent project manager, who is capable of acting very independently in different kinds of situations and projects.

I could say that the more experienced project managers acted as my mentors who guided and supported me on my path to becoming a skilled project manager. According to Anderson and Shannon (1988) (as cited by van der Weijden et al., 2014), mentorship can be defined as a process in which more skilled or experienced person serves a role of a model who teaches, sponsors and encourages a person who is less skilled or experienced and this way promotes the professional and /or personal development of that person. Mentoring can be a formal process, but also informal as in my case.

So I have had my own, and I must say very good experiences about being a mentee, which has had a great effect on my professional development. But before reading a couple of interesting articles, I had never realized how mentoring can be effective and helpful for children in addition to adults, and for mentors in addition to mentees.

Positive effects of mentoring

There is research about the positive effects of mentoring, both for the mentor and the mentee, and research also suggests that both young children and adults benefit from mentoring. Over the years several studies have shown the importance of mentorship. Ehrich et al. (2004) (as citec by van der Weijden et al., 2014) conducted a meta-review analysis of more than 300 research-based articles on mentoring in mainly education. Though mentoring sometimes suffers from lack of time and expertise, which is often the case in any project, the analysis showed that mentoring offers many far-reaching benefits for mentees as well as for mentors:

Mentoring mind map

Positive effects of mentoring as according to Ehrich et al. (2004)

Modelling as a form of mentoring

Nash and Shaffer Williamson (2011) studied one particular form of mentoring – modelling – and how it promotes professional thinking of the mentees. The study included middle-school age students and the mentoring took place through epistemic game called Urban Science. In the game it was studies whether mentors’ modeling of professional thinking contributed to players’ development of epistemic frame (that is, a profession’s particular way of seeing and solving problems) of urban planning through gameplay.

According to the results from the study, the epistemic frame that the players imitated during the game persisted after the game, and this serves as evidence that the players of Urban Science internalized professional thinking to the extent that they no longer needed the mentors’ scaffold. The professional thinking used by players went from being in the their zone of proximal development during the game to being within their actual development level by the time the game was finished.

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

While it is unclear when exactly this transformation (internalization) took place, there is evidence that the players of Urban Science began to achieve some autonomy in their ability to think as professionals, and that their autonomy was derived from their interactions with mentors. Thus it can be concluded that imitation of modeled behavior is one important step in the process of internalization.

I conclude based on my own experience and on the articles discussed above, that mentoring can have a strong effect on professional development, and potentially also in development of expertise. Mentoring is one path for learning, and I’m interested to see if this is something that will come up in my thesis where I plan to interview experts in trying to map their learning path to adaptive expertise.

If one is offered a possibility to a formal mentoring process, either as a mentee or mentor, it certainly must be worth to take. However, mentoring can also be more informal, and actually after remembering my past experiences and reading the articles, I was reminded that every encounter can be a learning experience. When you talk to and work with different people, whether they are your teachers, fellow students, colleagues, neighbours, relatives, or whoever, you can always take something with you from that encounter. For example, I have been talking about my thesis plans with my daugther’s friend’s mother, who happens to be in the process of writing her doctoral dissertation, and from those talks I’ve had many new ideas about what to do and how to proceed.

I conclude that learning truly is a social process and when you, with an open mind, talk to and work with different people, you are able learn a lot.

mentoring

References:

Nash, P. & Shaffer Williamson, D. (2011): Mentor modeling: the internationalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

van der Weijden, I. et al. (2014): How do young tenured professors benefit from a mentor? Effects on Management, Motivation and Performance.

 

Posted in Learning of Expertise | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Teacher expertise and professional development

UBIKO

As part of our LET -studies we got an opportunity to visit Oulu University Teacher Training School (“Norssi”), and discuss UBIKO -project (which stands for ubiquitous technology enhanced learning) with Heikki Konturi who is a teacher in Norssi and was project manager for the project. UBIKO -project was mainly funded by Finnish National Board of Education, it was conducted between 2011 and 2013, and it included 110 4th and 5th grade students working together with their teachers.

The main idea in the project was to modify school life to the 21st century learning needs by addressing pedagogy, infrastructure and culture. Physical changes in the project were that 5 traditional classrooms were molded into a learning environment that would promote self-regulated learning and collaborative learning in students as well as to support and enhance team work among teachers.

UBIKO

UBIKO

But how does this kind of physical learning environment promote self-regulated learning and collaborative learning? In practice, in UBIKO pupils have a lot of choices related to their learning; for example the location, whether they want to learn by themselves (solo), with a pair or in groups, they have access to technology (e.g. iPads), and they can choose the level of support and challenge they want.  Communal places, for example, are thought to give opportunities to think and reason together, which enhances students collaborative skills as well as self-regulation skills (opportunities for co-regulation and socially shared regulation). Additionally, communal places are natural and creative places for shared expertise to both pupils and teachers.

luokka

This looks like a typical Finnish elementary school classroom.

I have to say that I loved the new kind of learning environment! It is so different from the typical class I had as a child; we sat in the same class, in front of our own school desks the whole year round. I’m sure that the children in UBIKO all love their learning environment, especially due to the fact that they are able to move, and have the freedom to choose themselves, for the most part, where and how they want to learn.

When walking around the UBIKO, I was thinking to myself that I wish work places could be something like this also. In many cases, in information work at least, us adults spend most of our days sitting in front of our own worktables staring at a computer screen. If we had working environments similar to UBIKO, I’m sure there would be a lot more opportunities to be more creative and a lot more collaboration and sharing of expertise would be possible. I remember that many times in my former workplace the most creative ideas were born and a lot of important information passed between people during the coffee breaks when we were all sitting in the kitchen sofas discussing freely with each other and having a laugh.

Anyhow, back to UBIKO -project. In addition to just changing the physical learning environment to promote SRL and CL is not enough. Teachers are in central role in this, as they are expected to obtain a new role in supporting the pupils’ SR processes instead of just teaching the subjects. This means a fundamental change in the pedagogical role of the teacher from a mere information giver to being a diagnostician, a challenger, a model, and an activator. They should be able to model metacognitive strategies for students, coach students in the acquisition of those strategies and fade their support when students become more proficient in their use (Collins et al., 1989, as citec by Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels, 2009). Teachers should be able to design assignments, supervise project groups, coach cooperative learning, assess skills of self-regulated learning, etc.

Teaching should always be based on research-based pedagogy. So what happens if school leadership decides to change the pedagogy of the schools, to for example promote self-regulated learning. Teachers are expected to adapt their way of teaching accordingly, and this makes them learners along all dimensions of Shulman and Shulman’s (2004, as citec Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels, 2009) model: they have to develop another vision on
learning and teaching, be motivated to learn about the new pedagogy, understand what the innovation is good for, develop skills to bring the innovation into practice, reflect on their experiments with the new pedagogy in order to learn, and form part of a community of teachers who all are learning new things.

Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation

Teachers are supposed to be experts in learning, and teachers are the most important agents in shaping education for students and in bringing about change and innovation in educational practices. Thus, it is of utmost importance to develop the professional expertise of teachers.

There is a multitude of studies about how teachers could and should promote student learning, but not so many about teacher learning. A study conducted by Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels (2009) aimed at understanding teacher learning by studying learning activities of experienced teachers in the workplace. Their study was conducted among secondary school teachers within the context of a national innovation programme in Dutch secondary education which aimed at encouraging teachers to foster students’ ASRL (active and self-regulated learning). The study examined teachers’ learning activities and learning outcomes in the context of this educational innovation.

In the study six categories of learning activities, in which teachers engage when confronted with education innovation, emerged: “Experimenting” and ‘”considering own practice” were the learning activities teachers reported using most frequently. “Getting ideas from others” and “experiencing friction” were the next most frequently reported categories, followed by the categories “struggling not to revert to old ways” and “avoiding learning”.

Teachers reported learning mostly through experimentation and reflection on their own teaching practices. They seem to learn much less by external input like the ideas from others, such as colleagues or authors of professional literature. Yet, there appear to be large individual differences among teachers in the learning activities they employ.

Learning outcomes were represented by four main categories: “changes in knowledge and beliefs”, “changes in emotions”, “changes in intentions for practice”, and “changes in actual teaching practices”.  (These main categories included several subcategories.) The teachers mainly reported changes in knowledge and beliefs and in emotions, and hardly any changes in teaching practices. However, intentions for practice were often reported, which can be seen as precursors of change in actual practices.

The extent and the way in which teachers’ learning activities were related to the types of learning outcomes were found to be the following:

  • “Experimenting” was associated primarily with the Intention to Continue New Practices, Confirmed Ideas, Positive Emotions, and Surprise.
  • Of all learning activities, “considering own practice” turned out to be associated with the most learning outcomes, especially with Awareness, Change to New Practices, Intention to Continue Current Practices and Intention to Try New Practices.
  • “Getting ideas from others” mainly yielded new ideas and the intention to do
    something in practice with those ideas.
  • “Experiencing friction” often was associated with Negative Emotions and Surprise.
  • Finally, “struggling not to revert to old ways” mainly showed associations with Back to Old Practices and Confirmed Ideas.

Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels (2009) also studied how teachers’ learning activities and learning outcomes are connected to the type of learning environment they were in. Teachers in informal workplace learning environments reported relatively often that they considered their practice, experienced negative emotions and continued current (old) practices. They reported little experimenting, surprise, and new ideas compared to the groups in organized learning environments.

Teachers in organized learning environments (reciprocal peer-coaching and collaborative
project groups) reported relatively often that they experimented and got new ideas, and relatively little experience of negative emotions. Besides, teachers participating in
reciprocal peer-coaching reported relatively often that they struggled not to revert to old ways and experienced surprise. Thus, organized learning environments (reciprocal peer-coaching, collaborative project groups) did seem to elicit qualitatively better learning activities and outcomes than informal learning in the workplace.

Adaptive expertise

After visiting UBIKO and reading the article from Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels,  Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers” (2009), I could not help but to think that teachers have quite a challenge in head of them in adapting to new way of teaching (or should I say, helping students to learn) now that in Finland curriculum is reformed. I wonder how prepared the teachers are to adapt to the changes, and how prepared The National Board of Education and/or other instances are to give concrete instructions and support to the teachers.

I think that it’s often the case that there are great visions and strategies, excellent research and accurate theories, but too often also a lack or even failure to give practical examples and instructions how to adapt these to the common life and work environment. I wonder if the case with the curriculum reform is that schools and teachers are expected to develop suitable practices themselves. If this is the case, there is certainly a great need for adaptive expertise.

Based on research adaptive expertise is characterized by flexibility, innovation and ability to adapt in new and challenging conditions. Research has shown that adaptive experts are more flexible in using knowledge, they see problem solving as an opportunity to broaden their expertise, they tolerate ambiguity, and adapt in uncertain and changing situation. Research on adaptive expertise has also shown that adaptive experts are more prepared and willing to learn from new situations and that they are successful learners who are able to constantly learn throughout their lives.

Considering curriculum reform and teacher learning in this context, merely skilled experts may face difficulties in adapting to a new pedagogy and may be tempted to revert to old ways of teaching if they are not able to understand and make connections between the new theory and practice. Normal working environment may not be powerful enough for the teachers to learn a new pedagogy, but would require a community of teachers (possibly together with the theorists, administration, and students) to share expertise.

There is research based evidence that expertise can be developed in collaboration and especially in collaborative problem solving. So to support teachers, I think collaborative work is called for to share experiences, views, best practices, and solve problems together. Also the study of Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels (2009) showed that organized learning environments (reciprocal peer-coaching, collaborative project groups) did seem to elicit qualitatively better learning activities and outcomes than informal learning in the workplace.

The question is how this could be organised, as there are usually the problems of limited time and lack of resources, which is often the case in any organisation or company, which hinders the sharing of expertise efficiently. One possible solution to this could be technology to enhance learning and sharing of expertise. For example, social media tools could provide an adequate platforms to share information, interact and keep in contact with other experts.

As an example, I came across a blog post of a teacher who had read through the newly approved curriculum for 2016 (OPS 2016). He had made his own interpretation of it, and made a comprehensive list of what he thought 1. had been removed, 2.what there will be less of, 3. what continues, 4. what there will be more of, and 5. what is completely new in the new curriculum compared to the previous one. (Here’s a link to the post, it’s only in Finnish though, sorry.) However, this is a great example of how to share knowledge and help out other teachers in interpreting the new curriculum.

curriculum

References: Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D. & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher Learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20, 533-548.

Posted in Learning of Expertise | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Implementing interventions and assessing SRL

Planning

During the upcoming week we are going to be dwelling on the subject on how to implement effective interventions and how to assess SRL. So I’m anticipating that we will get information about how students can be helped to learn to regulate their learning and with it, practical suggestions for teachers how to teach and support SRL in students, all this grounded in the recent research about the interventions that have been found most useful and and effective. In addition, I anticipate that we are going to learn about different methods to assess SRL, and how we could apply that in our own studying and work.

My group also has to work on planning the teaching session the be held for the other course participants. So this week I really have to concentrate on that. I plan to attend the lecture about interventions and assessment of SRL and make the ICE notes, but I have to leave the articles to be read later on when I have finished all the other urgent tasks.

Three main points from the articles

Dignath, C., Buettner, G., Langfeldt, H-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes.

1. SRL among young children. A large amount of research has been conducted about how to make learning more efficient in the knowledge based society that requires new kind of competencies than before. During the last 30 years the construct of SRL has been developed to meet these new requirements. In SRL research the focus has been on how learning functions (focusing on the learner’s cognitive and motivational processes) as well as on how instructions function (focusing on the interaction between learner and instructor in a social environment).

Research has given empirical evidence that young children can and do engage in activities to self-regulate their learning. According to Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt (2008) “the major advantage of training children how to self-regulate their learning is that during these first crucial years in school, students set up learning and self-efficacy attitudes, which are easier to change than when students have already developed disadvantageous learning styles and learning behaviour.”

Empirical studies have shown that students can develop strategies based on their experiences, but that strategy construction can also be guided to develop SRL strategies. However, instructing and training students about learning strategies at the first years of elementary school is still rare, thus leading to lack of metacognitive knowledge among young children.

2. Main effects of SRL interventions. The meta-analysis conducted by Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt (2008) examined self-regulated learning interventions’ effectiveness on primary school students’ academic performance, strategy use, and motivation. It also investigated the effect of the different training characteristics on the effectiveness of the intervention.

The results of the meta-analysis showed that self-regulated learning training programmes have a positive effect on learning outcomes, strategy use, and motivation even for primary school childrenThe highest benefits from the analyzed interventions can be gained in mathematics performance (effects were higher for mathematics than for
reading and writing), motivational outcomes, as well as the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. These results revealed that young children benefit more in strategy use and motivation than primary school students in higher grades do.

The results of the meta-analysis conducted by Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt differ to some extend compared to the findings of the meta-analysis conducted by Hattie et al. in 1996. In meta-analysis by Hattie et al. the highest effects of intervention was found to be on performance, and the lowest on motivation and study skills. In addition, academic performance attained the highest effect in the meta-analysis of Hattie et al., whereas the average effect size was higher for cognitive and metacognitive skills than for academic performance in the meta-analysis of  Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt. These differences in the results could be explained by age differences, since the studies used in the meta-analysis by Hattie et al. were conducted with older students or adults.

3. Inferences drawn from the meta-analysis results by Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt (2008) suggest that:

  1. A training programme should be based on social-cognitive theories
    • The interventions, which were based on social-cognitive theory or a combination of social-cognitive and metacognitive theories, led to the highest effect sizes, while interventions which were based on motivational theories reached only low effects. In the social-cognitive perspective, social factors play a significant role in cognitive development, which might be best suited to young children’s learning.
  2. A training programme should train cognitive (especially elaboration and problem solving strategies), metacognitive (especially planning strategies), and motivational strategies (especially feedback)
    • The highest effects were found for interventions that combined the instruction of different types of strategies. Interventions should be integrative and consider various different aspects of learning, including metacognitive and motivational aspects.
  3. A training programme should provide knowledge about strategy use and about its benefit
    • The highest effect sizes were found for interventions which provided students’ with knowledge about strategies and benefits of applying the strategies, or additionally also stimulated metacognitive reasoning.
    • Most effective training programmes provided students with feedback about their (strategic) learning. In addition, the instruction of action control strategies influenced positively students’ strategy use. This is related to the strategies of metacognitive reflection, and might be most efficient because it is very close to the concrete learning content and strategy use.
  4. Programme developers should emphasize the implementation of group work.
    • Effect sizes were significantly higher for interventions that did not train students by group work than for those that did. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis only very little information about the implementation of group work in the learning settings were found. Thus, a possible reason for the negative effect of group work on training effects at primary school level might be that students were not used to working in groups and did not receive enough instruction about cooperative learning.
    • Primary school students may not yet have the competencies to work efficiently in groups and thus need instructions about cooperation. Therefore, researchers and trainers should give instructions of group work strategies before and during using this method.

Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt  (2008) remind that there are several questions concerning the implementation of training programmes by teachers that remain unanswered and require further investigation. Also, further research should be made about the differences of instructing self-regulated learning to younger and older students in order to improve interventions and to make them suitable for the different needs of students at different ages.


Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013) Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students.

1. Self-assessment as part of self-regulation. Self-assessment can be viewed from two perspectives; firstly, it can be seen as instructional process that teachers initiate for students to assess their work in school, and secondyl, as a self-regulatory process exerted by the students themselves to evaluate their own learning process. Self-assessment is a self-reflective process through which students can evaluate their learning process (during and after it) and final products, and thus develop their learning skills based on their “lessons learned”.

According to Panadero “self-assessment is the qualitative assessment of the learning process, and of its final product, realized on the basis of pre-established criteria”. (Panadero and Alonso-Tapio, 2013) This refers to the fact that students should set goals based on the assessment criteria before starting the task or activity, thus it is easier to self-regulate during learning and also assess how the goals are reached. Assessment criteria can be 1. set by the teacher, 2.  set externally but accepted internally by the student, or 3. criteria can be set by the student.

Goals and assessment criteria should be clear because this can enhance student motivation, feeling of control over the tasks (knowledge of what is expected of them), and gives opportunity to better self-regulation.

2. How self-assessment is acquired. Self-assessing different tasks and phases in one’s learning is complex, and should thus be taught and supported by teachers.

The conditions needed for self-assessment are:

  • awareness of the value (usefulness for learning) of self-assessment,
  • access to criteria the assessment is based on (the students should know the criteria before starting the task, so they can set goals, monitor their progress during the execution, and assess their success after finishing the task),
  • tasks assessed need to be specific (if a task is not well-defined, it will complicate self-assessment).

The instructional aids to promote self-assessment are:

  • self-assessment modelling (watching a model, an “expert”, perform the task),
  • direct instructions and assistance (give instructions for and feedback on the student’s performance),
  • cues to help to know when to self-assess (by giving instructions and also modelling),
  • practice (training self-assessment in various contexts and tasks, e.g. in reading, writing and problem solving situations),
  • opportunities to review and improve (detecting mistakes, and being allowed to correct them, improves performance).

3. Instructional help for self-assessment. There are three major types of instructional help that promote self-assessment:

  1. Self-grading or self assessment without specified assessment criteria, in which students assess or grade their performance at the end of the tasks without assessment criteria.
  2. Self-assessment using rubrics. Rubric is a tool that explicitly states the assessment criteria, and thus helps the students to evaluate their performance against the criteria.
  3.  Self-assessment through using scripts, which are  a set of questions  organised systematically and focus on the process of performing a task.

In self-grading, when assessment criteria is not given in advance, the students self-assessment is not accurate and self-regulation skills are not likely to develop. By contracts, rubrics and scripts promote self-assessment as they give the assessment criteria based on which the students can assess their progress.

If students are given the assessment criteria before starting the task (not just after finishing it), the students have a better opportunity to set goals for themselves based on the assessment criteria, choose their learning strategies, monitor (assess) and modify the strategies during the execution of the task, and finally assess their success in reaching the goals after finishing the task, which also helps them to develop their learning skills and use them effectively in the next tasks to come.

ICE notes

ICE 1How can SRL be studied? SRL is an internal process, so how can it be reliably measured as we usually have to make inferences about SRL based on external cues (such as behavior). I would suspect that this is especially hard regarding young children as, compared to adults, they are not yet able (mature enough) to recognise the features of SRL in themselves and talk about these, as adults would. Though, there are of course differences among adult as well to what extend they are aware of SRL processes and thus able to discuss them.

Quite often young childrens’ behavior is observed to draw inferences about SRL, but how valid conclusions can one make about SRL based on external cues. Take for example the well-known Marshmallow test:

Surely one can see that some children are better able to resist the temptation of a marshmallow than others for a period of time. But what are the conclusion that one can draw from a test like this, done in a test environment, about the childrens’ self-regulation; are the children who can resist the marshmallow better self-regulators, and if so, does this transfer to other domains (such as reading, writing, or problem solving) in real life, and does this preserve over time?

Contrasting to observing behavior, SRL can be studied based on the study subjects’ own reports of their SRL through, for example, surveys and interviews. Some obvious problems that comes to my mind is that to what extend are the study subjects (even if they were aduls) able to recognise SRL processes in their own learning, and how truthfully they answer the questions. That is,  do the study subjects answer the questions based on how they view their SRL processes or rather how they would like to see themselves (the ideal).

So, SRL is not easy to measure and when conducting studies, it should be carefully considered that the study is as valid and reliable as possible. (A valid measure measures what it is supposed to, where as non-valid measure measures something that it was not supposed to, or is too narrow. Reliability has to do with the quality of measurement. In its everyday sense, reliability is the “consistency” or “repeatability” of the measures. Reliability problem surfaces when we are not able measure the true value but only the measured value that includes random error. ) Also, the sample size and composition should be meaningful, and it also needs to be considered whether the study is conducted in test environment or in “real world”.

My point above is, that one needs to be careful and critical when conducting research on SRL, and also when reading about and forming views of SRL based on different research made.

ICE 2There are different methods to measure SRL: self-report, observation of overt behavior, interview, thinking aloud protocols, traces of mental event and processes, learning diaries, case studies, which all have their good and bad sides. One should choose the research method(s) used that are in line with one’s research goals.

Lately I have been thinking about my thesis subject, and how I am going to collect the data for it. I’m interested in expertise, so my thesis will most likely be related to that. Though, I’m only at the beginning of my studies, and do not yet know so much about learning of expertise, so my plans for the thesis are not yet clearly defined. However, I think that the obvious choice for collecting the data is to interview (using semi-structured interview) different experts as I want to go deep in the experts’ minds in trying to understand the underlying factors of learning of expertise.

Of course, being able to interview only a limited number of experts for the thesis might pose a problem in the sense that to what extend the inferences made from the data can be generalised to and across other experts (external validity issue). However, I try to surpass some of the validity problems by choosing experts with different background variables (interview both men and women, from different age groups, and different domains of expertise). And what I really carefully need to consider, and do some studying about, is how to construct the semi-structured interview – what kind of questions need to be asked that will tap on the learning of expertise so that I would be really able to study and draw conclusions about it.

 Reflection

My planning for this solo phase succeeded in that I initially decided that due to schedule pressure (exams and group work in other courses) I will leave reading of the articles to the last week of studies before Christmas break. Prioritising and scheduling tasks helped me to concentrate on those ones that needed to be completed first before starting others.

One challenge I faced in this task was due to technical problems, namely, the bad connection when Mr. Ernerto Panadero was giving us a lecture online. Due to the nature of the subject that I find quite difficult (understanding different research methods and how to implement them), it was a pity that at some points it was really hard to follow the lecture. I could grab some ideas from the lecture, but some issues remained unclear to me, so I decided that I should look at the lecture slides again before writing ICE notes.

Overall, I think I have succeeded quite well on this course of Self-regulated learning. I know so much more about SRL now than I did at the beginning of the course, and I think I have started to see the big picture more and make connections between SRL, CL, and learning of expertise. Though, I’m sure that there is still a lot more to learn. 🙂

Considering my motivation and learning strategies, I’m quite happy how I did. There were some occasional drops in motivation, usually when faced with pressing schedules or issues (concepts or such) that were hard to understand. But, taking short breaks, breaking the tasks into smaller pieces, and scheduling helped to overcome motivational challenges. Also, as I find the subject of SRL to be very interesting and I want to understand it, it helped me to persevere in the face of challenges.

Reading many articles about SRL and writing about them to this blog really helped to understand what are the different factors that affect self-regulation and self-regulated learning (emotions, motivation, metacognition). I would have liked to spend some time in the classes to discuss the articles with the other students and the teachers. It would have been interesting to discuss what the others found to be the key points in the articles, and how they view SRL after reading the articles. Additionally, we could have discussed the issues we had trouble understanding, and hopefully this way the students and the teachers together could have helped to clarify those difficult issues.

In the future in my LET studies, I hope to further deepen my knowledge about SRL, CL, and learning of expertise. Now that I have gained knowledge about these issues, I hope I’m able to start forming relevant connections between them more and form a big picture about the features of an active and efficient self-regulated learner and learning, and what factors promote those in the best way.

References:

Dignath, C., Buettner, G., Langfeldt, H-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, pp. 101-129

Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 551-576.

Posted in Self-regulated Learning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

SRL, CL and learning of expertise in real life situations

My mind has been occupied by self-regulation, collaboration and expertise to a great deal lately, as we have been studying those issues, and I’ve been discussing these issues also outside classroom. I have been talking with some of my friends and my family members about what self-regulated learning comprises of, and how it and collaborative learning can enhance learning of expertise.

Enhancing SRL on traditional lectures

With a friend of mine, who teaches accounting in University of Oulu, we discussed how they have huge lectures with around 100 or more students. This is a typical situation in teaching in university, that you have mass lectures and at the end of the course you have an exam. And typically, the students start reading for the exam at the end of the course, not minding it too much during the course.

On the said accounting course, in addition to lectures, the students are given optional assignment (home work), and by doing those tasks they can earn extra points for the exam/final grade. The trick is that the students have to read the course material to be able to do the given tasks, so they engage in reading and learning the issues and applying them during the course, thus they also perform better in the exam. And that being said, based on the feedback from the students’ on that course they also themselves found the assignments to be really helpful in understanding better the theories taught on the mass lectures.

Teaching large groups is always a challenge, and I think adding the optional home work to complement the lectures is a good idea. But how could this be still improved? Perhaps giving the students feedback on the assignments and giving them a change to improve their home work tasks based on the comments. In addition, the assignments could be done in small groups instead of as solo work. Maybe also the students could be asked to set goals for themselves at the beginning of the course, and advising them to reflect on their progress during the course, and reflecting their success in attaining those goals after taking the exam and finishing the course.

As said, teaching large groups is a challenge, and sometimes you just have to have those mass lectures. But maybe by little additions to the mass lectures, as mentioned above, there is a change to support the students’ learning better, and to enhance their self-regulated – and collaborative learning.

Enhancing learning of expertise in work life

My husband works as a software developer and is a scrum team master.  Scrum is an iterative and incremental agile software product development in which development team works as a unit to reach a common goal. At the beginning of the sprint, that lasts for 2-4 weeks, the team chooses which features or components they are going to work on during that period. This method enables teams to self-organize by encouraging physical co-location or close online collaboration of all team members, as well as daily communication among all team members and disciplines in the project.

scrum

We discussed how at the beginning of each sprint (or iteration) the team chooses their goals for software development, discusses the progress during the sprint, and at the end of the sprint has a retrospective in which the team reflects on their success on reaching the goals.

So there are already some elements of self-regulation and socially shared regulation and/or co-regulation, as the team decides upon and commits to common goals, and they work together to reach those goals, the actual production process including both co-operative and collaborative phases.

But the goals are only limited to the development of the software. We were thinking that perhaps they could add also personal goals and even team goals to the process, and reflect also those at the end of the sprint; were the personal goals reached, were the team goals reached, what went well and what could be improved.

The team member obviously need to have at least some basic self-regulation skills as well as knowledge about working together, as without any it would be impossible for them to work in a scrum team. But I think that adding personal and team goals to the process would further advance their SR skills, team collaboration and most of all each team member’s development of expertise.

Of course, what each team member will learn depends on the goals they set for themselves, but I suspect that many of them would set such goals that are related to deeper knowledge and understanding of the functionality of the software they are building, thus this will promote their expertise in the field of software development. At least this is what I would do in my profession as a project manager (I’ve been doing that job for over 10 years); I would set myself goals through which I would gain more knowledge and deeper understanding about project management to be more skillful and efficient in my profession.

Learning of expertise is something that I’m very interested in, and I’m planning to write my thesis related to this. In addition, I’m hoping that in my future job I could be involved in promoting employees professional growth and path towards expertise somehow (maybe a job related to HR in some way).

In my previous post I talked about how I think SRL, CL, and learning of expertise are intertwined. I think good abilities in self-regulation and collaborative learning can be a pathway to expertise, not only in school environment, but can also be applied in working life. So, I’m eager to learn even more about these topics, and hope to be able to apply them in work life after my studies, not only personally, but to help other people in that in some way or another.

Posted in Learning Theory & Pedagogical Use of Technology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SRL, CL and learning of expertise intertwined

On our Learning Theory and Pedagogical Use of Technology -course we have been going deeper into the three theoretical viewpoints on learning: self-regulated learning, collaborative learning, and learning of expertise, and discussed also the possibilities to support such learning with technology. I’ve discussed all of the three theoritical viewpoints in my previous posts also, but I would like to highlight some issues that I’ve recently been pondering more about.

Learning is a social process

Learning is a social process, because learning is affected by the environment and other contextual variables that might strengthen or hinder learning of the individual. People learn in participation with others in social systems, whether formal or informal. Learning requires social support, like modelling, scaffolding or other types of support like strategy use, metacognitive monitoring and information processing.

PLE’s supporting self-regulated learning

PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) can be applied in order to enhance learners’ self-regulated learning. Student can be gradually introduced to PLEs.

In the first phase a PLE works as a personal information management tool (or more specifically, a collection of tools) that the student can use as a personal information production platform, a private learning environment, where she can rehearse setting goals and planning. In the next phase, social interaction and collaboration is added to the mix. The student begins to communicate with others, and the private learning environment is turned into a social learning space. In it, the student can rehearse self-monitoring and help-seeking. In the third and final phase, the PLE develops into information aggregation and management tool in which the student is practicing self-regulation and self-evaluation and adapting her learning.

So, PLE promotes collaboration and social networking, as well as informal learning in addition to formal learning. Along the way student develops into an active and engaged learner who is responsible for her own learning, which is the aim of becoming a self-regulated learner.

Advantages that technology provides for collaborative learning

Contemporary technology can provide means that enhance learning, and collaborative learning in particular. Firstly, it removes the traditional barriers of time and space. It also provide similar opportunities for all learners. Learning can be synchronous or asynchronous, asynchronous being especially helpful for the students to learn at their own pace. By technological means, same skills can be rehearsed and learned as in face to face situations, such as negotiation, critical reflection, and consensus building. Also, learning through technology is social.

Collaborative learning is successful when group members are able to negotiate and agree on a joint task and they are all committed to work together to achieve the socially agreed goals. Group members should be equal and have mutuality in influence. Everyone should be motivated and committed to the jointly agreed goal.

There can be a range of challenges in collaborative learning from motivation, emotions, communication, to working styles, learning habits, even cultural differences, but if the group members are aware of this, and are able to negotiate and compromise, they are likely to succeed.

I think to be successful in collaborative work, one needs to be a good self-regulated learner as well. A self-regulated learner can set herself learning goals, and choose strategies how to reach those goal. During the learning process, the learner is aware and regulates motivation, emotions and cognition, and also monitors how she is progressing. If there are problems, the student can adapt the strategies. When the learning task is done, student evaluates and reflects on the learning progress and outcome if she was successful or not, and can readjust strategies in the next task.

Being a self-aware learner helps also in collaborative learning situations, and probably the learner is also able to regulate her motivation, emotions and behavior in collaborative learning situation, but most likely also others (co-regulate and engage in socially shared regulation).

What I think is crucial about Web2.0 tools and how they can affect learning, is that they promote social interaction and learning through building knowledge together. The important thing is how the given technological tool(s) affects the learners’ thinking and engage them in progressive information processing and aggregation, and problem solving.

You can take a look at this video that I came across in YouTube to get a better idea of what I’m on about:

Learning of expertise

I was talking about progressive information processing and aggregation as well as problem solving. These are features that I think marks the experts.

Experts differ from novices on how they approach new information or challenging problems and what they are trying to do with it. An expert tries to understand the nature of the new information or problem, see beyond the obvious, and try to extend her existing competence in order to find the best possible solution.

Experts approach new information with an open mind, thinking that there probably is more to learn that you could imagine in the first outset. They assume that there are important things to learn, though they yet would not be able to distinguish what that is. They are also aware not to make simplistic assumptions, but watch for the complicating factors. So instead of relying on the best-fit match, experts rely on a sort of a knowledge-building schema, a frame for progressive solving of knowledge problem which results in new knowledge and deeper understanding.

Rarely in today’s world an expert can work alone. In work life there are expert groups who solve problems together, create new knowledge and innovate. Experts learn from each other when joining forces, and can solve very complex problems together that they probably could not alone. This is the same in education as well, people (students, teachers, and other interest groups) have different expertise, and combining this, they can learn from each other, deepen their knowledge, and create new knowledge.

During this course I have come to the conclusion that self-regulated learning, collaborative learning and learning of expertise have a strong correlation, being intertwined and each supporting the other. Adding technology into the mix (especially highlighting how it promotes social interaction and can affect people’s thinking) opens up a new dimension for learning, offering both vast opportunities but also, not to forget, its own challenges.

To finish my deliberation on a lighter note, I want to leave you with a video we did on a small group, which summarises the themes (SRL, CL and learning of expertise) on our Learning Theory and Pedagogical Use of Technology -course.

Jingle bells, jingle bells…

References:

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago : Open Court, cop. 1993.

Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2007). Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 496-514.

Järvenoja, H. & 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.

Posted in Learning Theory & Pedagogical Use of Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Memory, metacognition and SRL

Cognition can be defined as set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge: attention, memory and working memory, judgement and evaluation, reasoning and “computation”, problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. Metacognition can be defined as knowing about knowing, or thinking about thinking. Metacognitive knowledge refers to acquired knowledge about cognitive processes, knowledge that can be used to control cognitive processes. For example, when and how to use particular learning strategies or strategies to solve problems.

thinking about thinkingI don’t know about you, but for me these concepts have always been somewhat vague, perhaps because they entail so much. Cognition and metacognition are main concepts including a multitude of sub-concepts such as memory, problem solving, reasoning etc. These sub-concepts in themselves are already complex in themselves. Human mind with all it’s processes is a complex network, that it makes it tricky to understand.

Planning

So this week we concentrate on memory, metacognition and how these relate to self-regulated learning. I have high hopes to gain some more knowledge to these complex issues, and gain deeper understanding to how people learn, and what are the strategies a self-regulated learner can exercise to improve his/her memory and especially metacognition which in turn enhance learning.

This week I plan to use the same strategies in my studying as last weeks. Though, time is again scarce, as we have to attend a video challenge, that will basically last for 1,5 days (from Thursday morning to Friday midday), and we also have to produce content for our group work on giving a teaching session to our classmates on the subject of “motivation and SRL”. This means I can start reading the articles, but put them of my tasklist at those days we have to concentrate on the video challenge and the group work.

Three main points from the articles

Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting Effective Task Interpretation as an Important Work Habit: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning.

1. Butler and Cartier claim in their article that task interpretation plays a critical role in successful learning as it forms the basis for effective work habits.

In schools teachers establish the learning environments and within them design activities which aim at fostering particular academic work habits and learning outcomes that students should adopt. Butler and Cartier (2004) suggest that

  • task purpose (e.g. writing a letter to a local politician to protest against shutting down the local school),
  • task structure (e.g. how is a good, convincing letter constructed), and
  • task components (e.g. breaking down the writing process to different phases)

are the key metacognitive knowledge about tasks. Student’s metacognitive knowledge about these components of task determine whether the student is successful in interpreting and navigating of academic tasks.

As students gain experience with repeatedly working with task and going through the different phases in them, they begin to develop work habits (i.e. habitual ways of working) that they adopt every time they are faced with academic work. As students first engage in interpreting the tasks, they then direct all their further  learning action (setting goals, choosing strategies and acting based on those, monitoring progress, and assessing their performance against the goals) based on their interpretation of task demands. In other words, task interpretation is the first critical step in self-regulation that sets the direction for all further learning. If, however, the interpretation is absent or faulty, it will mislead the student’s learning. Thus, for students’ learning to be successful, they must adopt an approach to academic work that always includes careful attention to interpreting tasks.

Students’ metacognitive knowledge about tasks play a key role in task interpretation and their engagement. Butler and Cartier (2004) state that strategic learners draw on their metacognitive knowledge about task purposes when interpreting task requirements and then modulate learning activities responsively to match different purposes. Understanding task purpose is not enough by itself, but successful learner needs also to understand how academic tasks are structured as well as what are the tasks components, which in turn guides them to select the learning strategies to be used. That is, student’s interpretation of a task impacts self-regulation, for example, the student’s belief about her ability to carry out the task (self-efficacy), interestingness or utility of the task, the strategies chosen to carry out the task etc.

2. How students’ task interpretations typically break down. Students may experience problems in interpreting tasks because of their limited or faulty understanding about task purpose, structure or components. According to research, students construct conceptions about academic work that do not always match with those expected by the teachers. For example, in writing a letter to a local politician to protest against shutting down a local school, the teacher’s aim could be for the student to learn how to write an effective and persuasive message, but the student might instead concentrate more her effort in making the letter just grammatically correct.

So, typically, according to Butler and Cartier (2004) problems in task interpretation arise when students have faulty or insufficient metacognitive knowledge about about task components, when students lack effective strategies for task interpretation, or when students fail to actively interpret task demands before starting work acting based on their misinterpretation of the task. With certain students the problems in self-regulation can be related to their cumulative histories with tasks, instructions and evaluation.

Understanding where task interpretation breaks down provides important information for directing interventions.

3. Practical advice for teachers about structuring activities, instructions and evaluation. Teachers influence students’ task interpretation, for better or worse, by the way they structure the learning environment. According to Butler and Cartier (2004) to support successful learning, teachers should structure learning environments to support active, reflective and productive task interpretation. Student’s should also be made more aware of task interpretation as an learning activity, and be taught about the strategies for interpreting tasks.

Teachers have a direct impact on students’ construction of metacognitive knowledge, task conceptions and self-regulations through their instructions and evaluation. For example, students’ interpretation of teachers feedback  (evaluation in the form of grades, for example) has a great impact on how the students view not only their success, but also their interpretation of tasks and thus also their construction of metacognitive knowledge and conceptions of academic tasks.

Prior to selecting activities, teachers should consider 1) their goals for students’ learning, 2) the variety and complexity of the tasks that compose the activity and how prepared to students are to face them, 3) what the selected activities will communicate to the students about academic work, 4) whether the selected activities will foster the intended learning outcomes. Also, when  breaking the activity down to smaller tasks (components), it is important not to lose the big picture, that is, the main idea of the activity. Instructions given to students, that supports effective task interpretation, tries to direct the students’ attention to learning processes, promote active engagement in learning, and maintain the focus on the goals of the learning activities.


Weinstein, C. E., Acce, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies.

1. Components of strategic learning. Strategic learners can be defined as having the skills, will, and self-regulation that is needed to be efficient learners. Weinstein summarizes these three elements in her Model of Strategic Learning:

  • Skills refer to critical knowledge about knowing how to use learning strategies and other thinking skills.
  • Will refers to motivation and affective components of strategic learning that affect academic success.
  • Self-regulation is both the glue and the engine that helps student manage their strategic learning.

All the three elements interact with each other to create effective and efficient learning.

2. Types of cognitive learning strategies are rehearsal -, elaboration – , and organisation strategies. In rehearsal strategies the student uses repetition in trying to learn a certain thing, However, not all rehearsal strategies are efficient for deep learning as they do not involve much cognitive processes (i.e. it is “mindless” repetition). Using elaboration strategies in contrast requires active cognitive processing as it involves adding or modifying the material some ways (e.g. summarising, creating and answering questions) to make it more meaningful and memorable for the learner. Organisation strategies are a form of elaboration strategies in which the learner organises the new material in graphic format, for example mind maps.

Weinstein points out that what is more important is that the learner engages in active conginive processing than what specific strategy the learner chooses to use. Different strategies or their combination can work for learning different kinds of materials and issues.

3. Declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. What ever strategy the learner chooses to use, she still needs to adopt three types of knowledge for any of the strategies to be useful, namely, declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to the basic definition of the strategies, procedural knowledge to how the strategies can be used, and conditional knowledge to in what circumstances the strategies can be used. This knowledge helps the student to choose and use the strategies efficiently in different learning situations.


Ormrod, J.E. (2009). Basic components of memory.

1. Dual-store model, and memory and knowledge types. The prevalent model of human memory today is called a dual-store model.According to the model, memory consists of three components: sensory register, short-term memory (aka working memory), and long-term memory.Brain

According to the model, input from the environment first enters sensory register where the information stays for a short period of time, time enough for it to undergo some preliminary cognitive processes to move to short-term memory, where the information is further processed for it to move to long-term memory.

Theorists make some distinctions between memory and knowledge types. Episodic memory – one’s memory about their personal lives and semantic memory – one’s knowledge about the world around them in general independent of one’s own experiences. Semantic memories typically stay longer with us than episodic memory. For example, we know what a bicycle looks like, but we might not remember how our first own bike looked like. Both these types relate to the nature of how things were or are – sometimes this can also be referred to as declarative knowledge.

But we also have something that can be called procedural knowledge; we know how to do things, like riding a bicycle. However, this as by itself it not enough, we also need information about what to do under different circumstances, like stop our bicycle when a car suddenly drives in front of us on the street. This is conditional knowledge.

Conceptual knowledge is our understanding of why certain events happen, why certain things are as they are, and why certain procedures are effective while others aren’t. However, whether this kind of knowledge is different from the other forms mentioned above, or simply reflects the relationships between them, is yet unclear.

Some theorists also make distinctions between explicit and implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that we can easily recall and explain where as implicit knowledge we cannot consciously recall, but which however affects our behavior. That is, sometimes people have no conscious awareness that they have learned something but yet this is clearly present in their actions.

2. Attention. If we want to move information from sensory register into short-term memory we must pay a certain amount of attention to that information. Certain characteristics in stimuli easily draw our attention – size (big size draws attention more easily than small), intensity (bright colors and load noises), novelty (unusual vs. usual), incongruity (odd things in a certain context that don’t seem to fit or don’t make sense), emotion (strong emotional associations), and personal significance (the meaning and relevance to us). Also, even if people are all paying attention to the same stimulus (nominal stimulus) they all may be  attending to different aspect of it (effective stimulus).

People are incapable of attending to everything at once, people can attend to one complex source of information at once. People have limited processing capacity, thus they have to be quite selective about what stimuli they choose to process, and they must ignore a lot of information they receive through their sensory register.

wasnt-listening-memeIn school settings teachers can help their students to focus their attention, and thus helping them to learn by:

  • including a variety of topics and presentation styles in teaching (keep the students interested and attending),
  • providing frequent breaks, especially with young children, as they come easily restless and distracted,
  • ask questions to keep students attentive,
  • minimise distraction when students are doing independent tasks, so that they can better concentrate,
  • seat the students, who have difficulties paying attention, near the teacher,
  • monitor students behavior, and
  • remember that different people may attend to different aspects of the same stimuli (nominal vs. effective stimuli),
  • plan tasks so that students can perform the task successfully only if they are paying attention to the things that are most important for them to learn,
  • remember, that people can process only a limited amount of information  at a time, and getting information to long-term memory is a slow process – so there’s limit to how much information should pack into one teaching session,
  • people have to continually choose what information is important that should be remember and learner, and what not – teachers should try to help the students to recognise the important information (see the forest from the trees).

3. Working memory and long-term memory. Short-term memory, or working memory, is the place in which the active processing of information takes place, so the thinking takes place here. Working memory seems to be central for many processes important for learning, thinking and behavior, e.g. directing attention, coordinating information from different sensory systems, making sense of situations, drawing inferences, reasoning, planning, making decisions, solving problems, inhibiting irrelevant thoughts and actions.

There are three control processes that affect the functioning of working memory: organising, retrieval and rehearsal. Chunking information helps to increase the information amount that can be stored in working memory, retrieval is a process of scanning all the information content in working memory until the desired information is found, and maintenance rehearsal which provides means of keeping the information “alive” by repeating it.

Long-term memory’s capacity to store information is regarded as unlimited, and information in it is probably stored in terms of meaning, that is, schematically. Also, all the information stored there are assumed to be interconnected – related pieces of information is probably directly or indirectly connected to each other.

Anything sensed is stored in the sensory register, and anything attended to is stored in working memory. Most information must be consciously and actively processed before it is stored into long-term memory. People are most successful in this when they understand the information, organise it and integrate it with the information they already have! Storing information to long-term memory occurs slowly, and a lot of information is lost along the way, so in a sense working memory is the bottleneck in the memory system.

Retrieving information from long-term memory is rather slow, at least compared to short-term memory, as there are a lot more information that has to be “scanned” through. Successful retrieval depends very much on whether the person is searching for it from the right “location”. This is where schemata are important. The better the information has been understood, organised and integrated in the long-term memory, the easier it is to retrieve. Also, the more ways the pieces of information is stored, the better the chances of retrieving it.

Ice notes

ICE 1: Human capacity to remember is limited, but strategies help you to remember more; SMART strategies come handy in this.

S – search and select. Not all information is equally important, so you should try to pick out the important information or main points that are meaningful to you.

M – monitor your understanding. Are you paying attention, or are your thought wondering? Do you understand what you are learning? Have you activated your prior knowledge, and are you making connections between the knowledge you already have with the new information?

A – assemble. Try to organise and structure information by elaborating, doing summaries, generating questions, explaining ideas, comparing and contrasting. Try to identify and connect big ideas. Use concrete strategies to do this.

R – rehearse. Practice what you have learned in several different ways.

T – translate, that is, put what you have learned into your own words. Reflect about what you have learned.

SMART strategies, I think, highlight the fact the one has to be an active learner, a self-regulating learner. It’s really very much up to you how efficiently you are able to learn. Learning is by no means a simple thing, as you have to be aware of your emotions and motivation in addition to cognitive and metacognitive processes. However, being aware of these and practicing them will get you further.

Practicing our learning and hopefully thus becoming better self-regulated learners is something we are doing on our SRL -course. By doing the ICE -notes from the lectures and finding three main points from the articles lets us practice the S – search and select relevant information. When writing them in our blogs we are assembling (A) and translating (T) the information. During the process we are also expected to monitor our process (M) and reflect about our learning process. Additionally, we are also going to give a teaching session to other students, so in that part we are also rehearsing (R) what we have learned, as well as searching, selecting and translating what we have learned when preparing the material for the teaching session.

Zits-20051018-metacognition

ICE 2: Meaningful information is easier to remember. This is connected to your prior knowledge, and how you have organised that knowledge in schemas. If you activate your prior knowledge, for example about what is SRL, it’s more likely that you are able to understand and thus remember better the new information you read about SRL, as you are able to integrate the new information to the existing one, especially if you are doing it SMART (see the ice-note above).

We had a great exercise on our lecture about how meaningful information is easier to remember . Try reading this:

laundry

Quite complex, right? How much do you remember about this? Not much? But what if I told you that the paragraph is about doing laundry, does it make more sense to you, and do you remember more about the text after reading again knowing that it’s about doing laundry. Yes, I think so. And I think also that this illustrates how you should activate your prior knowledge (in this case what you know about doing laundry), and that as you probably have organised that information in your mind somehow in a form of schema, it helps you to understand the new information as you are able to connect it to the existing knowledge that you have.

Moving on from doing laundry to a bit more wider view on this, namely experts vs. novices, that I started to think about after the exercise. Expert have a large body of usable knowledge, as the knowledge is organised so that it is easily retrievable, and they are able to use it adaptively in new situations, as well as integrate new information to their existing schemata. Previously I used to think that experts are in some ways more intelligent and experienced than other people, but recently I have become to think that perhaps expertise is not so much a matter intelligence rather than how effectively one learns and organises knowledge. That is, knowledge is build around big ideas which are organised in different schemata (contrasting to scattered pieces of information with no context).

This is getting a bit complex here, and I’m not completely sure if I’m able to explain this right, but let’s try. I imagine that I have at least some knowledge about what is expertise and what is SRL, and that information is organised in schemata. Having activated my prior knowledge about those, and when presented new information about the ways how learning and remembering new information can be enhanced, I connected this new information to both expertise and SRL. I started to wonder that perhaps there is a connection between good learning practises and expertise – that is, one central aspect of becoming an expert in a certain domain is connected to the person having effective learning strategies. Thus, expertice and being a good self-regulated learner are tightly connected. So hopefully this goes to show that I’ve understood something essential about expertice and self-regulated learning, and have begun to connect big ideas.

Reflection

This week’s subject has been a fascinating one, that has yielded a lot of valuable information, but at the same time raised perhaps even more questions in my mind. This is an area that will need more inquiry and getting to understand the issues more deeply. But what I’ve specially learner from this is that in the future in my own studies I try to focus more on picking up information that is most important, try to see the big picture, try to explain what I think I have learned in my own words, and try to make relevant connections between the ideas that are meaningful for me.

my_brain_diagram

One difficulty I stumbled into this week was reading of one of the articles, that is, I felt a bit unmotivated. I found the article to be quite long and dwelling in the single subject perhaps too extensively. However, being aware that it is important for me to read the article and try to understand the main ideas from it, I used the strategy that usually work for me the best (in addition to raising my motivation by recognising that the article is important for my learning): cut the article to shorter pieces to read one at a time, and do something else in between the reading. Like have a cup of well deserved coffee. 😉

The next and final solo task is related to how to implement effective interventions and how to assess SRL. I think this part will be tightly connected to teaching practices, and will be based on the current research on SRL as well as teaching. In the “how to assess SRL” we are probably going to go though several different research and different research methods, which most likely will be quite challenging to grasp. But I try to view the methods in the light of which of those methods I could be able to use in my own research, that is, the thesis.

References:

Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting Effective Task Interpretation as an Important Work Habit: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning. Teachers College Record,  106 (9), pp. 1729-1758.

Weinstein, C. E., Acce, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. doi:10.1002/tl.443

Ormrod, J.E. (2009). Basic components of memory. In Human learning (pp.166-186). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. (CA)

http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm

Posted in Self-regulated Learning | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Edit Challenge 2014

Meanwhile as still dwelling on the issues on the Self-regulated learning -course, and writing very structured posts in my blog for that, I decided to write something a little less structured for awhile.

In addition to the SRL – course, I’m also taking Learning Theory and Pedagogical Use of Technology– course. Well, the issues dealt with there are pretty much the same as on the other courses, namely SRL and CSCL. So you really cannot miss what are the core concepts and theories in our studies, and at the heart of the LET research unit. 🙂

But what I wanted to talk more about is the hackathon-style competition, Edit Challenge 2014, that we took part on the Learning Theory -course. This was a joint event organised by the Oulu University of Applied Sciences in Finland and the Pädagogische Hochschule Oberösterreich in Austria. The challenge was organised as a Hackathon-style educational event in which university-level students worked together in teams to create educational videos, and the event was held simultaneously in both locations, of course.

I was a bit nervous at first about how this was going to work out, that is, creating an educational video in such a short period of time with people I have never met before. However, it’s always good to try out new things, although they may seem daunting at first. And I figured that as this was set as one of our course tasks, this must be a good opportunity to learn.

I was randomly assigned to a group, that turned out to be a great one! Me and another student from the LET -studies represented the “experts” in learning, and two other students were from Oulu University of Applied Sciences and possessed knowledge about visual communication and technical editing of videos, so they were the “experts” in media communication. We figured out the idea or concept for our video quite quickly while getting to know each other and planning the project at the same time. So from the planning phase we were able to move directly to filming and then editing. All in all, the whole process of making the film took about 6-7 hours. You can check out our video below. (It’s the first one of the nine videos that made it to the finals.)

We didn’t win though, but still I’m happy about what we could do together, especially taking into account that we did not know each other before, and we had a limited amount of time to use. I’m happy about how well our project itself went. We were from the beginning on the same page, so to speak, so communication and decision making was easy. We also shared the view about our goals that we wanted to reach and were equally motivated. We were able to combine everyone’s expertise to produce an educational video.

What we wanted to point out in our video is that in today’s world the learner can, and has to be, a curious and an active one in search for knowledge and understanding. The different technological means enable us to not only search for information, but also to construct it together, and share it further.

Contemplating still a bit more about this Edit Challenge, I like it’s idea to combine different people’s different knowledge and expertise, and how it challenges those people to work together. Having these kinds of experiences in university level is a huge advantage (compare this to students just attending and listening to lectures, and never getting to do anything practical with their knowledge, for example), and not only let the students to practice their skills and make use of their knowledge in real situations, but prepare them for the working life. Because that’s pretty much what working life is nowadays: working with many different people with different background, knowledge and skills, to jointly solve a problem, or create and innovate something new.

So, I’m happy to have experienced this “challenge”, and gotten three new friends midst the learning process. (Thanks girls!) ❤

Posted in Learning Theory & Pedagogical Use of Technology | Tagged | Leave a comment

Motivation and emotions in SRL

During this period we are going to concentrate on motivation and emotions’ side in SRL. This is, for some reason, a personal interest of mine. Perhaps for the reason that I have noticed during my studies how I more and more scutinise my own feelings and motivation, as well as try to estimate and interprete the feelings and motivation of other students. I also chose to joint the group in our course which will produce a groupwork on motivation and emotions in SRL and present it as a form of a lesson for the other course members. Getting to choose this particular subject I was most interested in was important for my motivation. 🙂

calvin_motivation

The importance of motivation in learning. Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Planning phase

So as said, during the next period (week) we are going to concentrate on motivation and emotions’ side in SRL. As this subject is interesting to me, and also because we are going to produce a group work about this subject, I plan to carefully read all the articles and of course attent the lecture midfully. Again, I have to prioritise my tasks and organise them so that I will be able to successfully complete all the tasks from different courses. This time, if nothing unexpected happens (like my other child catching the flue), I should have enough time to do all the work. This means however that I have to work hard during evenings and the weekend as well.

 Three main points from the articles

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations – do students regulate emotions evoked from social challenges?

1. Emotions, motivation and collaboration. According to Wolters (2000) emotion regulation is the learner’s ability to monitor, evaluate and change the occurance, intensity and duration of an emotional experience. In his view, emotion regulation is an effective strategy to regulate motivation which in turn is needed for the learner to complete a task.

groupThompson and Fine (1999) state that motivation and emotions has been found to be central in collaborative learning. Many researches agree upon that learner’s emotions are formed at the junction where personal, contextual and social aspects of learning meet. In collaborative work, socio-emotional challenges are typically higher than in conventional learning situations. Examples of challenges are conflicting goals, different level of interest, working- or communication styles, and interpersonal features. These socio-emotional challenges may become obstacles that affect the learner’s motivation and thus effect the learner’s action. Overall, regulation of emotions is crucial both in individual level as well as on group level for successful collaboration.

2. Socio-emotional challenges that students encounter. Järvenoja and Järvelä (2009) studied a group of students who worked collaboratively, and found that they encounter different types of socio-emotional challenges which were triggered by personal priorities, work and communication, teamwork, collaboration, and external constraints. During collaborative learning, students must overcome different emotional and motivational challenges to maintain their engagement in the learning and also to maintain good interaction with other group members. Both the pedagogical structure and the group members’ increasing experience of one another may affect the nature of the challenges encountered. The study revealed that during the tasks personal priorities and work and communication became less challenging, but surprisingly challenges in teamwork and collaboration increased.

3. Regulation used to overcome socio-emotional challenges. Järvenoja and Järvelä’s (2009) study showed that students use different forms of regulation to maintain collaborative groupwork. The results from the study suggest that group members share some of the regulation processes within the group (SSRL) while also using self-regulation (SRL). On the contrary, the study reveals that students don’t benefit from co-regulation (CoRL).

The group profiles showed that it is possible to reach personal goals and work successfully together even if the situation is interpreted from each individual’s own perspective. That is, the challenges were interpreted differently, and also the regulation processes used by the group members varied, but all the students felt they achieved their collaborational goal.

Järvenoja and Järvelä conclude that making students aware of how different group members’ interpretations differ from their own, may help the group to avoid emotional conflicts and to solve challenges they might face. Intervetions, such as scaffolding for both cognitive and socio-emotional challenges, may improve the quality of collaboration and academic achievement.


Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning.

1. Motivation and motivation regulation: Student’s ability to control their motivation has an impact on their learning achievements. Motivation can been seen as a state that varies, whereas motivation regulation is an active and conscious process of the learner to affect his or her motivation. Motivation regulation strategies aim at affecting student’s willingness (will) to study. These strategies do not necessarily influence how the student complete their activities, but why and for how long they are sticking to them.

Motivation and motivation regulation have an interdependent and curvilinear relation. Student’s with high motivation rarely need to regulate their motivation, and students with low motivation rarely even begin regulating their motivation. Thus, students who have some initial motivation but face difficulties during studies resort to motivation regulation strategies more often than students with very high or very low motivation.

According to Wolters, motivation regulation strategies must meet two criteria: 1) students must be deliberately acting to attempt influencing their motivation and 2) the strategy used should actually help or improve student’s motivation and subsequent performance.

2. Motivation regulation strategies: One critical aspect of SRL is strategies used to regulate motivation.

Motivation mindmap

Self-consequenting means that a student can administer rewards or punishments on herself for reaching some goal in completing a certain task. For example, a student can motivate herself to read a chapter of a study book, and having a big cup of hot chocolate after that as an reward.

Goal-oriented self-talk can be used in such a way that the student tries to reason and explain to herself why she needs to persist and complete the task.  For example, she can reason that she must complete the task so that she will do well in a test and get good grades, or that she will learn the subject thoroughly and gain new knowledge.

– By interest enhancement the student tries to make the task more enjoyable or interesting to persist on it. Make studying into a game, for example.

Environmental structuring means making the environment such that there is less chance for distraction or at least less intense distraction. For example, organising the studying environment so that there is no noise.

Self-handicapping means making obstacles before or during the task to make the task performance more difficult which in turn hampers motivation. Examples of these are putting off work until the last minute or staying up late the night before the exam.

Attribution control refers to student’s perceived causes of their performance (either good or poor performance). For example, the student can explain their poor performance on the lack of ability (which lowers their motivation further) rather than lack of effort (which in turn is something that the student could improve by regulating her motivation).

Efficacy-management is connected to student’s self-efficacy or beliefs about her capabilities and how successful she is in her performance in tasks (perceived competence). This can be divided into three different strategies: proximal goal setting (breaking complex or large tasks into more simpler or smaller tasks), defensive pessimism (students highlight their lack of ability or other such factor to convince themselves that they are not able to do the required task), and efficacy self-talk (students try to reassure themselves that they are going to perform well).

Emotion regulation refers to ability to monitor, evaluate and change the occurance, intensity and duration of emotional experience to ensure that the student can provide effort and complete the tasks.

3. Future research needs on motivation. Wolter’s says that all motivational regulation strategies are not appropriate in all situations nor in response to all motivational problems. Additional research that documents the situational influences would help to clarify the conditions where motivation regulation strategies facilitate the students performance the most. He also stresses that motivation regulation should be studies to find out what is the relationship of motivation regulation and other processes importat for SRL. Equally important would be to study further how students’ motivation regulation develops in time.


 Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance.

1. Role of motivation in student’s self-regulated learning. It can be argued that high motivation increase student’s attention the learning processes and  outcomes. It also increase student’s choice of tasks as well as the time the student is willing to persist on difficult tasks. Students with low motivation need help from teachers to enhance their motivation the spend time in practicing in implementing self-regulatory processes. Research has proven that SRL strategy training can enhance many aspect of student motivation.

2.Sources of motivation. Zimmerman describes different sources of motivation in his article:

Sources of motivation

Goal-orientation can be divided to performance goals and learning goals. The purpose of performance goal is to receive positive feedback from one’s performance and avoid negative judgement. Learning goals is to actually increase one’s knowledge and gain positive self-judgement though it.

Interest can be divided to situational interest and individual interest. Situational interest is formed in situ, and usually the motivation does not transfer beyond that situation. Individual interest is enduring and directs the activities, objects or ideas the person chooses and pursues.

Intrinsic motivation involves the perceived role of various types of reward on student’s valuing of an activity. Intrinsic motivation refers to behavior that is driven by internal rewards. In other words, the motivation to engage in a behavior arises from within the individual because it is intrinsically rewarding. This contrasts with extrinsic motivation, which involves engaging in a behavior in order to earn external rewards or avoid punishments

Task value refer’s to students perceived worth of a particular task. This can be divided into attainment value or importance, intrinsic value, utility value or usefulness, and cost.

Self-efficacy and outcome beliefs. Self-efficacy  refers to expectancies about personal capabilities to organise and execute courses of action. Outcome expectancies refers to the results of one’s actions.

Future time perspective (FTP) focuses in student’s beliefs about the outcomes of efforts to self-regulate. SR is viewed in terms of conflict between immediate and delayed outcomes, that is, students with long FTP should remain motivated longer than those with short FTP.

Volition process enables students to focus their concentration and sustain their effort in dealing with personal and environmental distractions. Research shows that use of volitional strategies can serve as a source of academic self-regulation.

Causal attribution refers to student’s perceived causes of their performance (either good or poor performance). Students who attribute causation to internal, changeable and controllable methods should be more motivated to continue self-regulating their learning than those students who view causation as external, unchangeable and not controllable.

3. Cyclical view of motivation during SRL. According to social-cognitive view, SRL is divided into three cyclical phases: forethought, performance and self-reflection each of which include metacognitive processes and motivation feelings.

a) In forethough phase the student analyses the task by setting goals and making a strategic plan. These depend on student’s motivational feelings: self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, task interest/value and goal orientation. This phase helps the student to prepare to the upcoming task to learn and self-regulate learning.

b) In performance phase student exerts self-control strategies and self-observation. Self-control strategies include metacognitive strategies (such as task strategy and imagery), volitional strategies (such as action control and emotional state control), and motivation strategies (such as self-consequenting, environmental structuring, self-instructions, interest enhancement). Self-observation refers to metacognitive monitoring or self-recording of certain aspects of one’s performance, conditions and effects. The performance phase influences student’s attention and actions.

c) Self-reflection phase processes are self-judgement and self-reaction. Self-judgement comprises of self-evaluation and causal attribution, self-reaction comprises of self-satisfaction and adaptive or defensive inferences. Self-reaction phase creates reactions to prior learning (performance phase) and consequently affects how the student prepares for the upcoming learning tasks (forethought phase).

11decerfZimm400

 

ICE notes from lecture

ICE 1: On the lecture Ms. Hanna Järvelä talked about the features that affect motivation: interest, values, self-efficacy, motivation goals and causal attribution. I have never before thought that values affect motivation so much, though now that I come to think about it, it’s pretty obvious that the higher you value something the more keen you are on spending your time and effort on it. But to what extend can values be changed or affected to by an external agent (or person).

Take for example in elementary school, if there is a student who does not value learning (and is thus unmotivated), can this be affected and changed. Perhaps. Could it be that if learning, for example a task in some subject, is made interesting and fun, it would evoke situational interest in the low-motivated student. Furthermore, if the task is challenging enough (not too challenging to be attainable) it would result in affecting positively the student’s self-efficacy. This in turn would affect positively the student’s motivation, and perhaps in the longer run, the situational interest of the task in the certain subject would turn into personal interest. And this in turn would also change the student’s value in that the student would start valuing learning more.

It’s important that the student is able to use different learning strategies and strategies to control and affect their emotions and motivation, especially in the situations when they face difficulties, for example, if the tasks seem very difficult or just merely boring. However, the teachers should compose their tasks so that they are challenging enough to be attainable, but also interesting and why not even fun. This way the students’ motivation would have a better change to stay high, and the students would not have to even begin using their strategies for motivation regulation. 🙂

ICE 2: Motivation is the fuel that directs, maintains and hinders activity.

I’m motivated to study and want to learn, but that does not prevent me from feeling unmotivated sometimes. I find that the most difficulties I face in situations where I don’t understand something, for example, when I’m reading articles and come across difficult concepts and complex theories I have trouble understanding. Then I become easily frustrated, and start even questioning my self-efficacy (“I’m I just plain stupid, or why can’t I get this.”), and then my motivation sinks. Usually I recognise my negative feeling first, and try to address it by for example taking a break in between the reading, and just calm down. Then I decide to try again, but perhaps in a different way (break down the reading to smaller parts, or try to find additional information from the internet that would clarify the difficult issue). So what I’ve done conciously has been to control my feelings, and apply strategies that help me to continue and persist, though I’ve considered these strategies more as volitional strategies that help me in studying than as strategies that help my motivation.

According to volitional model, motivation refers to the state and processes  prior to deciding on one’s choice of goals (i.e. pre-decisional processes), whereas volition refers to post-decisional processes which deals with the implementation of strategies and attaining one’s goals. Strictly taken  this could be interpreted as motivation staying the same throughout the learning process or doing a task, and volitional processes guiding the person throughout the task. However, motivation can change quickly during a task, so it should be monitored and assessed throughout the learning/task.

Emotions, motivation as well as learning strategies all play a crucial role in effective learning, and they are and should be rehearsed throughout one’s life. It all begins, when one’s a child, with recognising one’s feelings and learning how to control them. For example, witt young children parents can help them recognise the negative feelings and advise the children how to control them. Usually children get quite angry purely for the reason that they are either tired or hungry, so the parents can help the child to recognise the feeling and the reason for it. For example, the parent can say that “I think you feel angry because you are hungry. Perhaps we could eat a little snack so I’m sure you feel much better after that.”

When children go to elementary school, they already should be quite good at regulating their emotions, but as they are still growing up, they may sometimes need help with their emotions. Around that time, when children go to school, motivation and motivation regulation comes quite important. With my 7-year-old first-grader I’ve notice that I do not only have to check her homework, but I also have to try help her with the motivation, especially when she’s struggling with difficult homework. Usually I have to try to boost her self-confidence (i.e. her feeling of self-efficacy is low), and tell her that if we keep on trying, she will eventually learn and it will get also easier. I can also suggest to her, that maybe we can try doing little parts of the task one by one and take breaks in between. What I’ve also noticed is that when she does well on some task, she’s so happy that she wants to do some extra tasks and is very eager to tell and also show us how she has completed the tasks. So at that point she’s very motivated to learn more.

So with young children it’s important that they first learn how to control their emotions and motivation, and later on when they are older and in school, knowing how to use different learning strategies becomes also important.

 Reflection

This week was a hard week because I had so much to do, that is to read and write and collaborate, for several different courses at the same time. This time I had the opportunity to read all the required three articles thoroughly, and it took time, yes. In addition to this, I still find writing blog posts to be hard work, because you have to really think about what is relevant and be accurate in what you say – you would not want to pass on wrong information or incorrect interpretations of, for example, learning theories, so you need to check thoroughly that what you are presenting is correct.

I have not counted the hours how much effort I have put into this week, but it has been a lot, perhaps somewhere around three whole working days. I probably should give myself a pad on the back. But what were the issues that kept me going? The main reasons for me was the interest in this particular subject. Also, when I finished some task (for example reading an article and realised that I really understood what was said in it), it gave me confidence to move on to next task. In addition,  I want to do well on this course, and to really gain knowledge from this that I can make use of later on in my studies and work as well.

Next week we are moving onto the subject of metacognition. I hope my motivation and energy level will stay as high as this week, so that I will be able to perform well. The strategies I’ve used this week have worked quite well, so I plan to proceed pretty much the same way as before.

References:

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations – do students regulate emotions evoked from social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463-481.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (4), pp. 189-205.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge.

Posted in Self-regulated Learning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment