Self-Regulated Learning – Theories Or Pedagogies

Abstract

The current pedagogies promoting Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) present three separate Self-Regulated Learning pedagogies: (1) Key components of the study and task conditions including SRL; (2) Gradual process of SRL transfer: (3) Direct instruction of SRL strategies. The present research reveals the connections between these different approaches, analyzes their applications and most of all contextualizes them theoretically. The literature review conducted for this study shows that pedagogies to promote Self-Regulated Learning can be thoroughly understood in relation to socio-cognitive and socio-cultural theoretical contexts. This deep conscious process of teaching and learning is explained by these three pedagogies via theories that are connected to reading and writing research. A fourth pedagogy presents synergetic integration of the three Self-Regulated Learning pedagogies interwoven with Self-Regulated Learning theoretical contexts. Finally, application and implication of the fourth pedagogy will be presented and recommended, including pre-service teachers’ preparation programs. Research findings show that providing tasks that include a range of techniques involving establishment of a system of scaffolding in discourse helps pre-service teachers in primary schools to develop SRL practices to promote students' SRL ( Perry, Hutchinson & Thauberger, 2007 ). Based on research findings that pointed to the considerable contribution of pre-service teachers' collaborative reflective learning discourse on developing their teaching to promote Self-Regulated Learning ( Michalsky & Schechter, 2013 ), it is recommended that promotion of SRL in teaching will be develop by shared-regulation learning discourse in groups.

Keywords: SRL pedagogySelf-Regulated LearningSRL socio-cognitive theorySRL socio-cultural theory

Introduction

For years, widespread consensus existed among researchers regarding the general definition of SRL. Despite the consensus, a number of published literature review studies pointed to a variety of views regarding SRL construct ( Paris & Paris, 2001; Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Dignath, Büttner & Langfeldt, 2008; Moos & Ringdal, 2012). Over the years, numerous research studies that were conducted, transformed SRL into a field of massive proportions, pointing to continued expansion and development. As a result, SRL became complex and intricate. Therefore, it is important that researchers set their theoretical sights on SRL and present them in context.

In order to promote SRL, three main SRL pedagogies are identified in the literature (Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Michalsky & Schechter, 2013): (1) Key components of the study and task conditions including SRL; (2) Gradual process of SRL transfer: (3) Direct instruction of SRL strategies. This article will present these pedagogies and the learning environments in the context that promotes this learning. Specifically, a contextualization of these three SRL pedagogies in two specific central social theories – socio-cognitive and socio-cultural theories – will be described. Furthermore, a fourth SRL pedagogy driven from the contextualization will be suggested. Finally, the application and implication of this pedagogy in teaching and in pre-service teachers' preparation programs will be presented and recommended.

Pedagogies to promote SRL

The literature review reveals three contributing pedagogies to promote self-regulation learning (Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Michalsky & Schechter, 2013):

SRL Pedagogies Contextualization in Learning Environments that Promote SRL

The literature reviewed for this article did not find contextualization of SRL pedagogies in learning environments. Instead, learning environments are perceived in the literature as enabling learners opportunities to control their own learning and encourage students to learn in a self-regulated way as an important prerequisite to promote SRL in classrooms (Zimmerman, 2000; Perry & Vandekamp, Mercer & Carla, 2002; Otto, 2010; Perry & Rahim, 2011).

The learning environment is made up of student and teacher characteristics, learning content, tasks, and teaching methods. Guiding principles for conductive learning environments to foster students’ self-regulatory skills are: social interaction among students, active construction of knowledge, learning embedded in authentic situations to foster transfer, and development of self-regulatory skills (De Corte, Verschaffel, and Masui, 2004). Studies presented empirical support for the positive effects of powerful learning environments on SRL in increased students’ self-regulation activities, and in better academic performance (Masui & De Corte, 2005). Advanced technology learning environments include various scaffoldings and possibilities for choosing learning paths and strategies to accommodate the instruction to different students self-learning in addition to face-to face dialogue (Perry & Vandekamp, 2000; Moos & Azevedo, 2008).

1SRL Pedagogies Contextualization in SRL Theories

Connections between SRL pedagogies and SRL theories are explicitly mentioned in the literature review of earlier theoretical research; however less attention was paid to the implications of these connections (e.g. Paris & Paris, 2001; Moos & Ringdal, 2012). Accordingly, SRL pedagogies contextualization in SRL theories is conducted in this article. Specifically, the theoretical context of this article is based on the meta-analytical research of Dignath & Butler (2008) on training programs in SRL. The researchers found that the most effective characteristics of intervention programs for teaching young children are based on socio-cognitive theories, or on social theories in combination with metacognitive theories (Dignath & Butler, 2008). In light of this, SRL socio-cognitive theory and SRL socio-cultural theory combined with metacognitive processes and strategies will be presented. Then, an explanation of the pedagogies contextualization in these theories will be reported.

Towards a Fourth SRL Pedagogy

The understanding that there is room to integrate the three SRL pedagogies which are associated with two different theories and their interweaving intensified the construction of a fourth pedagogy. Consequently, it appears that teaching should focus on the first stages of observation, demonstration and verbalization, deriving from the second pedagogy of the gradual transition process of SRL in the context of socio-cognitive theory (Zimmerman, 1998). While the following stages focus mainly on the socio-cultural approach in developing co-regulated teacher-student discourse and in shared discourse with peers with/without a teacher, incorporating reference to various aspects of SRL (Boekaerts, 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Hadwin, Wozney & Pontin, 2005; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007), as well as advancement of SRL through direct and indirect instruction will be based on different learning strategies and personal adaptation (Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Michalsky & Schechter, 2013).

The fourth SRL pedagogy suggests a synergistic integration of these three pedagogies interwoven into the theoretical contexts. This will advance SRL according to ownership of regulation (by the teacher, the student, or both in collaboration), degree of regulation, manner of regulation (demonstration, verbalization, scaffolding by way of direct or indirect verbal discourse, reduction of teacher support in discourse, and transfer of teacher self-regulation to the student), type of regulation (collaborative, constructive, transfer, self-regulated), regulation aspects (cognitive, motivational, metacognitive, behavioural, contextual) and the stage of regulation (definition of task, planning, use of strategies, monitoring, metacognition). In addition, importance is attached to the fact that the learning will take place as transactions in the context of learning.

Generalization from the micro-level, the fourth SRL pedagogy presented above, to the macro-level organization of this pedagogy is suggested in the following way:

• Definition of the SRL theory/ies as the context in which the pedagogy/ies is/are contextualized.

• Presentation of key components and scaffoldings:

  • In the study and in task conditions .

  • In learning environments- Physical / Technological / Humanistic.

• Discourse:

  • Discourse only in instruction- by observation, emulation.

  • Teacher- student/s discourse or student/s discourse -

    • Implicit/ explicit instruction of SRL strategies or processes.

    • Co-regulation, or Shared-regulation, or Self-regulation discourse.

This conceptualization of the fourth SRL pedagogy will also give the other SRL pedagogies possibilities to be articulated while referring to their contextualizing in theories.

Conclusions

This article has presented three pedagogies to promote SRL, first at the explicit level in the literature review, (Michalsky & Schechter, 2013; Dignath & Büttner, 2008). Then, a more sophisticated understanding about pedagogies to promote SRL was constructed at the implicit level. Initially, it was found that the application of a certain pedagogy in specific research that appeared in isolated cases, revealed that the first and the second SRL pedagogies in the context of socio-cognitive theory was based on laboratory research and research on intervention (Paris &Paris, 2001). Such application later took place in the form of intervention programs in classrooms (Zimmerman, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007) – understood as the application of the second pedagogy of gradual SRL process of transition.

In contrast, the application of a particular pedagogy appeared initially in specific research in the context of socio-cultural theory as a description of events. At a later stage in the research, the primary application of the first pedagogy appeared – pre-planning and providing key elements in the task and task conditions that create opportunities for SRL were seen. In addition, reference was made to the application of the pedagogies in the context of this theory to teacher-student discourse and formulation of stages in teaching-learning processes based on observation of lessons by good teachers instructing through advancement of SRL. Derivation by conclusions and generalizations were based upon them, without formulating a clear-cut theoretical conceptualization of a pedagogy (Perry, 1998; Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer & Carla, 2002; Perry & Drummond, 2002).

In any event, a unique literature review has been created in two stages to explore the implicit level of the pedagogies that promote SRL in order to receive a deeper understanding of this theoretical research in positioning the SRL pedagogies in their theoretical context. The first stage consisted of explaining and giving examples from research studies to each pedagogy to promote SRL, separately. The second stage addressed these pedagogies in line with their theoretical context, explained the theory and its implications, and the place of the pedagogies in each one of the social theories.

In conclusion, pedagogy to promote SRL is highly complex. Since the construction of SRL and its advancement and becoming a self-regulated learner involves a multiplicity of processes and is in essence based on a reciprocity between different processes taking place simultaneously and synergistically in a number of aspects (cognitive, metacognitive, behavioural and motivational), being more than a mere amalgamation or simple integration between its components. It appears that in order to address each component there is room for better organization that is multi-combinational, and albeit complex, easy to operate. More than anything, the most significant scaffolding proposed is discourse , within which the predominant process is transfer in stages from an experienced teacher who guides learning, provides direct and later indirect instruction and promotes shared self-regulated discourse on the part of the students (with/without a pedagogic instructor/ teacher) until the student attains ownership of his learning – i.e. becomes an independent learner.

The fourth pedagogy to promoting SRL suggested in this article, integrates the other three SRL pedagogies together with key components presented and constructed in the study, the task and the learning environment with scaffolding in the way of more extensive discourse, while making reference to the theoretical contexts of the two social theories based on the findings of previous research. However, further research in classroom learning environments is required as per this pedagogy in theory conceptualization according to the detailed micro-level components and the macro-level generalization.

Application to pre-service students’ preparation programs can be seen in research on their training in SRL promotion in the context of socio-cultural theory according to the first pedagogy. Research findings show that providing tasks that include a range of techniques involving establishment of a system of scaffolding in discourse helps pre-service teachers in primary schools to develop SRL practices to promote students' SRL (Perry, Hutchinson & Thauberger, 2007). However, there is room for shared- regulation learning and for collaborative metacognitive processes that pre-service teachers initiate during their lessons in addition to co-regulation learning on their part with their students in their teaching (Perry & Rahim, 2011). Based on research findings that pointed to the considerable contribution of pre-service teachers' collaborative reflective learning discourse on developing their teaching to promote SRL (Michalsky & Schechter, 2013 ), it is recommended that promotion of SRL in teaching will be develop by shared-regulation learning discourse in groups.

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs,
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
• Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-Regulated Learning: Where we are today?. International Journal of Educational Research,, 41, 445-457
• Boekaerts, M.Corno, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention.. Applied Psychology: An International Review,, 41(2), 199-231
• Cleary, T J.Zimmerman, B J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school- based program to enhance self-regulated and self- motivated cycles of student learning.. Psychology in the Schools,, 41, 537-550
• Corte, E De.Verschaffel, L.Masui, C. (2004). The CLIA-model: a framework for designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving.. European Journal of Psychology of Education,, 41(4), 365-384
• Dignath, C.Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students: A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level.. Metacognition & Learning,, 41, 231-264
• Dignath, C.Büttner, G.Langfeldt, H P. (2008). How can primary school students acquire self-regulated learning most efficiently? A meta-analysis on interventions that aim at fostering self-regulation.. Educational Research Review,, 41, 101-129
• Greene, J A.Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of sophisticated mental models.. Contemporary Educational Psychology,, 41, 18-29
• Hadwin, A F.Wozney, L.Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student discourse about a graduate research portfolio.. Instructional Science,, 41, 413-450
• Masui, C.Corte, E De. (2005). Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of self-regulated learning.. British Journal of Educational Psychology,, 41(3), 351-372
• Michalsky, T.Schechter, C. (2013). Preservice teachers’ self-regulated learning:Integrating learning from problems and learning from successes.. Teaching and Teacher Education,, 41(1), 60-73
• Moos, D C.Ringdal, A. (2012). Learning in the classroom: A literature review on the teacher. Education Research International. Hindawi Publishing Corporation . Retrieved from:, 10-1155, Retrieved from: doi:10.1155/2012/423284.
• Moos, D C.Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: the role of prior domain knowledge.. Contemporary Educational Psychology,, 41(2), 270-298
• Otto, B. (2010). How can motivated self-regulated learning be improved? In
• Paris, S G.Paris, A H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist,, 41(2), 89-101
• Perry, N E. (1998). Young childrens self-regulated learning and contexts that support it.. Journal of Educational Psychology,, 41, 715-729
• Perry, N E.VandeKamp, K O. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young childrens development of self-regulated learning.. International Journal of Educational Research,, 41, 821-843
• Perry, N E.VandeKamp, K O.Mercer, L K.Carla, J N. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning.. Educational Psychologist,, 41, 5-15
• Perry, N E.Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become self-regulated researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher,, 41(3), 298-310
• Perry, N E.Hutchinson, L R.Thauberger, C. (2007). Mentoring student teachers to design and implement literacy tasks that support self-regulated reading and writing. Reading and Writing Quarterly,, 41, 27-50
• Perry, N E.Rahim, A. (2011). Studying Self-Regulated Learning in classrooms. In
• Pintrich, P R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning.. In M.,Boekaerts
• Pintrich, P R.Schunk, D H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications.
• Schunk, D H.Zimmerman, B J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In, 34-50
• Schunk, D H.Zimmerman, B J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.. Educational Psychologist,, 41, 195-208
• Schunk, D H.Zimmerman, B J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modelling. Reading and Writing Quarterly,, 41, 7-25
• Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
• Winne, P H.Hadwin, A F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated engagement in learning.. In D.Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 277-304
• Zimmerman, B J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In, 1-19
• Zimmerman, B J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In. M.Seidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications, 13-39
• Zimmerman, B J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects.. American Educational Research Journal,, 41, 166-183