DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO SELF-REGULATION

ANDREW READ & DONNA HURFORD

“Too much independent learning is left to us”

Roots

Context of student group: flexible distance PGCE students

Our expectations: “flexible learning requires learners to exhibit a degree of autonomy and self-direction in order to engage effectively” (Sadler-Smith and Smith, 2004, p.398)

Our response: revision of the flexible distance Education Studies course (Slater et al, 2008)

Our new understanding: emerging possibility that some students chose this route for more pragmatic reasons

Supporting autonomy

Autonomy is “an integral part of learning of any kind. No learner can be effective in more than a very limited area if he or she cannot make decisions for themselves about what they should be learning and how they should be learning it” (Boud, 1988, p.17)

“It is important not to set up patterns and expectations that mean that students remain in a state of dependency” (Light and Cox, 2001, p. 141).

Competing demands

Course requirement: student autonomy

Student needs: personalised approach...

self-perceived dependence?

‘Learning to learn’ input is

key (Sadler-Smith and Smith, 2004,

p. 408)

Competing demands

Course requirement: student autonomy

“Too much independent learning is left to us”

‘Learning to learn’ input is

key(Sadler-Smith and Smith, 2004,

p. 408)

Moving forward

“In the context of today’s higher education we mustmove away from sole reliance on the explicit articulation of assessment standards and criteria…

“The continued emphasis on explicit articulation of assessment criteria and standards is not sufficient to develop a shared understanding of ‘useful knowledge’ between staff and students.”

(Rust et al, 2003, p161-2)

Developing shared understanding

Where am I now?

Where do I anticipate being in x months?

Where will I be at various points along this continuum?

What will I need/need to do in order to progress along this continuum?

Bandura and Schunk (1981)

“Proximal subgoals provide immediate incentives and guides for performance” (p587)

“Children who set themselves attainable subgoals progressed rapidly in self-directed learning, achieved substantial mastery...and heightened their perceived self-efficacy and interest in activities that initially held attraction for them” (p595)

“Self-efficacy is concerned with judgements about how well one can organize and execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (p587)

Links to current primary practice

‘All pupils routinely determine and use their own success criteria to improve.’ (DCSF, 2008, p 17)

Student philosophies of teaching

I recognise the teacher as expert who has

responsibility to pass what they know to

learners.

I see the teacher as facilitator,

enabling learning & accommodating

differentapproaches.

Som

etim

es I

…ca

n a

llow

p

rog

ressio

n o

fid

eas th

at a

re

not m

y ow

n.

Lesso

n

ob

serva

tion

s, re

flectio

ns o

n

ow

n te

ach

ing

.

Critique of model

How does this relate to our own perceptions of self-regulation?

How could the model be adapted?

What are its drawbacks?

Next steps

Double continuum: recognition that other elements (relating to students’ prior experience and/or expectations and/or motivation ) may affect their responses.

Review in January 2010 – How do students feel an approach such as this has supported their own learning?

Dissemination of practice: Sadler-Smith and Smith argue that training for trainers to support student development of learning to learn skills is key (2004)

Double continuum

Uncritical

Nonchalant

Motivated

Critical

References

Bandura, A. and Schunk, D. (1981) ‘Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest Through Proximal Self-Motivation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (3), pp.586-598.

Boud, D. (1988) ‘Moving towards autonomy’, in Boud, D. (ed.) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, 2nd edn, London: Kogan Page, 17-39.

DCSF (2008) The Assessment for Learning Strategy. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.

Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London: Sage.

Luft, J. and Ingham, H. (1955) ‘The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness’, Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Rust, C., O’Donovan, B. and Price, M. (2003) ‘Improving Students’ Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (2), pp. 147–164.

Sadler-Smith, E. and Smith, P. (2004) ‘Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (4), pp. 395-412.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990) ‘Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview’, Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), pp. 3-17.