UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
17 Responses to Self-Regulated Learning
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Perry reviews her primary school classroom research and other people’s research to describes how classroom tasks, instructional practices and interpersonal interaction can support children’s development of and engagement in self-regulation and self-regulated learning (SRL). She also analyses the strengths and limitations of her research, and insights from other people’s research to frame directions for future research. She suggests that children regulate learning in classrooms where they have some autonomy in decision making and self evaluation. However, without support, SRL can be difficult. It’s that fine balance of how much do you or do you not help a child. I feel that self-regulation ties well with most of the theories we have discussed thus far. For example, students apply self-regulation to “control cognition, emotion and behavior, and conduct themselves appropriately and flexibly in a wide range of contexts”. This easily lends itself to behaviorism, cognitivism, socio-emotional learning, and social context of learning. My two main opinions of the article are regarding inquiry and coregulation, and electronic devices and self-regulation.
Something that I think students and teachers struggle with is inquiry practices and coregulation. Inquiry is at the heart of our new curriculum, because people finally acknowledged that kids will be more engaged and will learn better if they’re actually interested in the subject matter. Or, as described by Perry: ” Most children find complex tasks intrinsically, or at least situationally, interesting and both forms of interest are associated with motivation for learning”. Also, inquiry gives students more autonomy in their learning, and students feel empowered when given choice in their learning. Where I think that teachers struggle is regarding coregulation. Do you employ open inquiry, guided inquiry, coupled inquiry, structured inquiry, etc? How much do you support your students and how much do you stand back? This is where I often see inquiry fail in classrooms, where teachers stand back completely and disregard the students’ need for coregulation. Coregulation may happen by helping students develop a timeline for their project, or by teaching them some base skills and scaffolding until the students are capable of working without help. However, I often see teachers throw their students into the deep end, they drown, then the teacher turns around and says “well I tried inquiry and it totally doesn’t work”.
The next thing that I think that students struggle with is the use of electronic devices and self-regulation. Devices are a part of our every day lives, and in secondary school, the core of the adolescent’s life. Perry states that “children who are productively self regulating can…resist distractions and persist through difficult tasks they perceive are necessary or worthwhile”. Well, in that case, most classes I walk by mustn’t be perceived as necessary or worthwhile since most students are on their phones. Or, is Perry’s statement slightly flawed, or perhaps dated? Our school is a bring your own device (BYOD) school, and students are welcome to bring devices into all of their classes. Where they struggle is their ability to self-regulate when is the appropriate time to use the device. Teachers often integrate the devices into their lessons, and create meaningful and engaging kahoots, or poll-everywhere polls, etc. However, students still fall off-task or are sidetracked by YouTube videos, or social media, or messages from friends. Ultimately, the social draw from their drug-like phones will always be more attractive than whatever engaging lesson teachers plan, even if it incorporates meaningful electronic device interaction. My question moving forward is, how do we deal with this in our classroom? Is it ok for students to check their phones whenever they want in order to satisfy their social need? Should that be ok? I have no issue with students bringing a phone to class, but, if the phone is there, then I don’t think it matters how productively they can self-regulate, their phone is an irresistible distraction (as it is for most adults, especially while driving). If we as adults can’t put the phone away, I don’t believe that Perry’s statement could possibly be true for students in 2016.
Perry (2013) defines self-regulation as referring “to individuals’ ability to control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands” (p. 45). The article shares research results, strategies, and the effectiveness of lessons that promote self-regulation in children at a young age. Previous research states that development of self-regulation was not possible in younger children, however, new research and Perry’s article demonstrates that young children can begin to self-regulate if it is modelled and scaffolded in the classroom by the teacher or at home by caregivers. Self-regulated learning (SRL) enhances engagement and motivation which promotes academic success. “Research indicates that when students are invested in complex tasks they perceive are meaningful, they report deeper engagement and increased use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to regulate learning. Consequently, their performance is enhanced, and the success they experience increases self-efficacy” (p. 51).
Self-regulation can be applied to control cognition, behaviour, and emotion. It involves metacognition (reflection on strengths and weaknesses), motivation (the value placed on personal progress and deep understanding), and strategic action (choosing the best strategy depending on the situation). SRL expands on both Vygotskian and neoVygotskian frameworks as they build on independent and social forms of learning. SRL consists of shared-regulation (shared awareness of goals and collaborative tasks) and co-regulators (giving and receiving support beneficial to learning and SRL, which can be the learning that takes place from adults to children, children to peers, and also children to adults). Research demonstrates that those who achieve the skills for self-regulation improve in their academic achievements and those whose self-regulation is low before attending school will most likely struggle in their academics.
In order to promote self-regulation before the child attends school, it would have to be the task of the parents or caregivers as educators are not usually involved in the child’s development at that stage. However, many parents will not have this knowledge or have the skills to begin scaffolding, modeling, and developing self-regulation. The new BC curriculum has thrown many educators into a dizzy spin as they have “educated” students in the same way for many years and now this new framework has introduced challenges and difficulties in changing and “facilitating” knowledge and tasks within the 21st century classrooms. Self-regulated learning and the new curriculum seem to tie well together as the curriculum aims for a learner-centered approach and SRL aims for student control. It links well with the behaviourist approach in order to model the skills (such as: questions, activities, topic choice, self evaluation, etc.) before using a more constructivist approach and being the facilitator whilst the students begin to take control and make decisions.
The research results demonstrate effective teaching for promoting self-regulation within classrooms. How can we encourage this integration when many teachers are already concerned with the changes taking place due to the new BC Curriculum? It would be ideal to have researchers or teachers as presented in the article to go to classrooms and model the activities and tasks for teachers. Teaching is a practical profession and it is often difficult to take the research and results and apply it to our own classrooms, especially with the individual needs.
This year, I have integrated in class support for the ELL students and instead of pulling them out into a group, I work with them in the classroom on the same activity as the rest of the class. When the teacher is setting up the activity, we intervene with each other and I may draw visuals to present clear understanding, ask questions, present graphic organizers, use post-its or have students use post-its. This technique of providing ELL service has been very productive and effective. Many of the teachers are learning from my strategies and I am learning from theirs in a practical environment and with the students they will be working with all year round. It would be very effective to have teachers model activities to promote SRL in the actual classroom where the teacher will be teaching for the whole school year. However, how can this be organized? How will all teachers be given the support to implement this in their classrooms? Could the non-enrolling teachers receive training for this and model it in the classrooms? Implementing inquiry projects, project-based learning, activities to promote self-regulation all require skills and these skills need to be modelled in order for the teacher to model it to the students.
This week’s article by Perry, a UBC professor, is a review of her research into the practice of self regulated learning by teachers and K-5 students in BC elementary schools. It sums up her conclusions about how classroom practices can support self-regulated learning and discusses the strengths and limitations of SRL practices. Self regulated learning involves metacognition, or considering strengths and compensating for weaknesses; motivation, or thinking of oneself as a learner; willingness to try challenging tasks; understanding that failure is part of the process of learning; and strategic action, or analysing a situation and choosing the most effective from a repertoire of strategies to use. SRL occurs when students can engage in meaningful tasks, make choices, control challenge, and self-evaluate learning; however, teachers and peers must provide support with complex tasks and situations where students have autonomy.
I have observed that those students who struggle in school often are afraid or reluctant to try a new strategy. They persist in using ineffective strategies that they learned in previous grades and resist trying anything new. I’ve wondered if they were afraid of losing the understanding of what they first learned in the process of trying something new.
I haven’t used SRL to describe what goes on in my classroom prior to DLC3, but I do take it into account when I structure the learning environment in my classroom. My philosophy has been that I want students to take ownership of their learning and become more independent. I want each of my students to know that I expect them to participate to the best of their ability and that the structure and routines of the classroom are there to help them succeed. Children want to feel valued and that they have agency. They like the sense of confidence they feel when they have the capability and agency to do things on their own. They also want to know that they can ask for help and that someone is looking out for them.
My classroom has a lot of structure. There are times in the day when everyone is working on the same task, like a lesson in JUMP math, and other times when students choose their task from whatever I or my partner has assigned. I have not reached the point where students make all the choices about what they learn since I am obliged to teach and report on the curriculum, but I try to provide choices, which is one SRL strategy, within that framework. For the past 3 years I have had my students work on Personal Inquiry Projects where they choose a topic to investigate and report on their findings. This has been very engaging for my students, who have baked cakes, played the guitar, taken photographs, built models of rollercoasters, and so on. I am changing this approach this year to focus on coding and coding projects to address the need of my younger students for more scaffolding and structure within inquiry projects.
Another strategy I use is co-regulation through metacognitive prompts. When students have questions, I will often direct them to ask another student that has already found a solution, because then both students learn, the one who has to explain and the one who is questioning. I also tend to answer questions with questions to direct a student to consider how they can find the answer themselves (did you read the directions, think about what you did in an earlier lesson, tell me what you have tried so far, did you look at the example, tell me how you would spell that word). Answering questions with questions also helps me to see what my students really need: reassurance that they are correct or thinking effectively, redirection due to misunderstanding, review of a key skill or concept to complete a task or solve a problem, or reframing to make a question or assignment understandable.
I’m using Showbie, an online portfolio app, for the first time with my students this year. I’ve enjoyed giving personalized comments and guidance to each student, which is a form of classroom discourse. My students have been using this to post coding journal entries. It has been given me insight into which students are able to recognize and articulate the learning they have done and the strategies they use. Most students talk about how motivating and enjoyable coding has been, even though it has been challenging to learn how command blocks work and troubleshoot when they have problems. I tell my students it is “hard fun”. While it takes time, energy, and effort to learn how to code, it is also very satisfying to plan and create a story, animation or game. More explicit posts generally correlate with the students who are more successful students. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are high achieving students, since many of my students are relatively new to Canada, just that they have the self-regulation skills and attitudes to effectively learn.
Perry’s article (2013) examines how self-regulated learning (SRL) can be supported through classroom practices, such as tasks, teaching practices, and interactions with staff and peers. Self-regulation is important because it impacts achievement – low levels of self-regulation have been linked to academic difficulties. Perry conducted her research over five years in primary school classrooms (Kindergarten to Grade 5) in British Columbia to observe how students can regulate learning when they have the opportunity to take engage in meaningful tasks, make choices, and self-evaluate learning. Furthermore, the research also assisted educators in developing strategies and tasks to support SRL. SRL consists of metacognition, motivation, and strategic action to know how to apply the best suited strategies to various situations. Hadwin and Winne (in press) identify explicit (understanding of task requirements as provided), implicit (inferred information of learner) and contextual (knowledge of how task relates to larger ideas) aspects of understanding. These aspects are needed for subsequent SRL to take place.
Perry argues the importance of teachers in supporting autonomy and promoting active learning in order to support SRL. The research focused on how teachers give students opportunities to make choices, control challenge and self-evaluate learning. In my classes, I create tasks that focus on larger meanings and provide opportunities for my students to think metacognitively. They are able to regulate learning by making choices about tasks, and self-evaluating their learning. The choices I offer are usually having them choose who to work with (organizational support). I pair organizational choices with cognitive support where students explain the choices they made (they justify their design choices). They also evaluate their work (self and peer assessment). Moreover, I provide structure and routines in my classes. I clearly communicate what is expected. I provide support and guide students through activities to provide constructive feedback to make adjustments as needed. As discussed in the article, the revised BC curriculum includes self-regulation within it. I am able to support SRL in the implementation of the curriculum (big ideas, core competencies, and the curricular competencies) – in my instruction practices and the design of tasks.
Co-regulation, which is important for SRL, consists of giving and receiving support from adults or peers. As an educator, I provide support for SRL through co-regulation – through explicit instruction, scaffolding (questioning, feedback), structure, routines, collaborative learning and teaching (safe community environment), self-evaluation, peer evaluation, and non-threatening evaluation.
As Perry argues, it is important to examine how students understand tasks and how they engage with them. Challenges for teaching SRL, as recognized in the article, are moving away from the choice of what and who to where and when. Recently, I received an email from my colleague at my school regarding self-regulation in the classroom. Our Choices team applied for funding from our PAC to equip four classrooms with self-regulation equipment (Hokki chairs, balancing cushions, kick bands, exercise balls and standing desks). The intent behind this equipment is to improve the learning environment for all students. Self-regulation is being promoted in my school, but it focuses on providing the opportunity to students for movement to increase attention and concentration. The email I received argues that “it is believed that movement and fidgeting can provide stimulation in relation to the learning process and feeling calm and content.” However, Perry’s article (2013) does not mention physical stimulation in relation to SRL. Although my school is taking steps to focus on and promote self-regulation, are they the right steps to take for the meaningful and impactful support of SRL?
Perry’s article promotes self-regulation and SRL early in children’s academic careers. She describes self-regulation, and co- or shared regulation. Her research has focused on how teachers use three practices to support autonomy and SRL: giving children opportunities to make choices, control challenge, and self- evaluate learning. Her article describes her research and challenges for teaching and studying SRL.
I liked how Perry described how to support co-regulation with scaffolding (questioning, modelling and feedback), familiar participation structures (ex. class meetings, mini-lessons, familiar classroom routines), participation structures, and peer support (ex. share ideas and support with activities/learning, not only with friends where they will be off topic, provide structured questions/activities with peer, and collaboration), and non-threatening evaluation practices (ex. on going assessment, students will take more chances with SRL support). Co-regulation ties to Vygotskian and neo-Vygotskian framework. Although his theory is a foundation of constuctivism, emphasizing social interaction, knowledge and zone of proximal development. With these supports listed above, co-regulation encourages Vygotsky’s theory.
I enjoyed reading research from a BC teacher and found her study interesting and applicable. At my high school we recently completed interims for our students. They are given a Good, Satisfactory or Needs Improvement for work habits. Work habits include homework/assignment completion, organization, accountability, self-regulation and respect & safety. I found numerous students struggle with self-regulation associated with their cell phones and has a result have been given a Satisfactory. In my class, you get two warnings and then I ask you to put your device in the cell phone box until the end of class. No matter how often students are reminded of wise use of their devices, some of them cannot seem to self-regulate.
This week’s topic on self-regulated learning really resonated with me as I spent the first 6 years of my teaching career in a Montessori classroom where SRL is embedded into the Montessori philosophy. Not only many of the strategies Perry mentioned in her article aligned with what I believed and have done as a Montessori teacher, her argument that SRL can and should be taught at a younger age (than intermediate/middle levels) also agree with Maria Montessori’s belief that development and learning that occurs in the first stage (from birth to age six) should not be ignored as children tackle the task of self-formation through sensorial exploration of physical awareness, coordination, will, independence, and language (Lillard, 1996). Yet, despite the large amount of references, there’s not one mention of Dr. Maria Montessori in Perry’s article, which to me was a big surprise.
Nonetheless, I want to focus on Perry’s suggestion of three practices that support autonomy which I agree with as these strategies helped foster my students’ SRL in my Montessori classroom. The first one Perry mentioned is the opportunity for students to make choices. When my students receive a task or project, I usually give them the freedom to decide how to complete it, as long as it follows the criteria that was set prior to the beginning of the assignment. Sometimes, these criteria are decided as a class. An example of this is a Giveback project that I do with my students every year. Students have the freedom to choose how to give back to their community, and in the process learn to achieve various competencies integrated from a wide range of subject areas. Some students collect items for the needy, some volunteered their time, and I even had a group planned a carnival for the entire school to fundraise for a charity group of their choice.
In terms of controlling challenges, which Perry subsequently discussed (albeit ever so briefly), I discussed with my students on how to choose effective group mates before asking them to form teams for the Giveback project. Students evaluate on their own strengths and weaknesses and were encouraged to find people who could complement them rather than just working with their best friends. In my carnival group example, there were students who were skilled artists who worked closely with their peers who were creative makers to produce cardboard arcade games that attract other students around the school to purchase tickets to play. I find that when students are able to select peers whom they would like to work with, they become more engaged in tasks as they feel more connected with one another.
Lastly, I am a firm believer in student regularly reflecting on their work. My students always receive a self-evaluation form at the end of assignments and projects that allow them to not only think about ways they could improve on their work, but also give them a chance to look back and celebrate on things that were done well and can feel proud of. In fact, my students wrote a majority part of their report cards. Most of the time, they were very honest with how they assessed themselves, and when there were discrepancies between what they gave themselves and what I observed, I conferenced with them and encouraged them to provide evidence to justify their self-evaluation. All this helped my students develop metacognitive skills as well as giving them a sense of ownership over their work.
All in all, I believe SRL is a critical component for our students if we want them to develop into independent individuals of society. It is a life skill and we ought to do more to introduce this into our classrooms as early as possible. Montessori preschools have been incorporating SRL for decades and there are observable differences between students in my class who have come from other Montessori classrooms and students who were late-entries and did not have the opportunity to be immersed in SRL environments.
Reference:
Lillard, P. P. (1996). Montessori today: A comprehensive approach to education from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Schocken Books Inc.
I would agree Simon, the Montessori program does naturally lend itself to SRL. The idea of co-regulation also fits well her as peers can be co-regulators as often Montessori classes are multi-grade which would allow for older students to help c0-regulate younger students.
I enjoyed reading Perry’s article, “Understanding classroom processes that support SRL” (2013) because the study focused on classrooms at the local level in British Columbia. Perry defines self-regulated learning as “individuals’ ability to control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands”. Students are able to successfully follow instructions, avoid distractions (such as environmental stimuli) and have strategies to overcome or inhibit feelings of frustration to complete tasks. The important factor here is that these tasks need to feel meaningful and worthwhile to the students. Perry explains that according to Mclelland, Acock and Morrison (2006) implementation of “effective forms of self-regulation in kindergarten predict achievement gains through grade 6” (p. 47).
As a primary classroom teacher I enjoyed reading the case studies and examples and it helped me to reflect on my own practice as well as my inquiry for my master’s project. The article made me thing about the questions I need to be asking my students and types of complex and meaningful tasks I should embed in my teaching to promote and encourage self-regulated learning. I often ask myself when planning a theme, unit or project, is this important or meaningful to my students? How can I ensure their interests and not my own are guiding what we are doing?
The section about the importance of choice really resonated with me because it is something I consider along with these questions, however choice is something I unfortunately do not implement as much as I feel I should. Perry explains that choices “must require students to make meaningful decisions about learning and be accompanied by cognitive/metacognitive support and activity that prompts SRL (e.g. choosing a partner for a collaborative task on the basis of who will be the most instrumental to learning)”. When I taught Kindergarten I realized how important providing opportunities for choice were for the students to be connected to their learning. When choosing a play or thematic centre I would often ask students, “What is your plan today at this centre?” I would also ask them, “Who could you work with at this centre to make your plan possible today?” or “What are the materials/tools you need to achieve this goal today?” These kinds of questions and opportunities for choice can be worked into other primary levels as outlined in the case-studies, but I find myself asking these kinds of questions much less to my grade three students. I often pair them up with someone I think they will work well with on a project or activity rather than giving them the choice and thinking about who would help them complete the task or project successfully. This article reminded me that to ensure students’ development of SRL I need to let go of the control and allow for choices such as who they are going to work with or choose their own method for how they are going to achieve a goal or present information in their project or task. My role is to make sure I am asking the questions that promote cognitive support about their decisions when given the choices, as given with the example of the teacher MH on p. 54. Perry explains that this helps students “to justify their choices or evaluate aspects of their own and others’ decision making” thus promoting their regulation of learning. This is something I am definitely going to consider as I move forward with my own inquiry and as a primary teacher.
This week’s article “Understanding classroom procedures that support children’s self-regulation of learning” by Nancy Perry provided a clear definition of self-regulated learning (SRL) and many practical examples of SRL in the classroom. I found the article to be well-written and easy to understand. The author used many classroom examples which I found to be very practical and the ideas were easily transferable into my own classroom. Perry’s definition of self-regulation is an “individuals’ ability to control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands” (pg. 45). This definition caused me to think about several students in my class – some who have exceptional abilities to self-regulate and some who lack the ability to self-regulate. The difference between the two groups is large and I often observe students in the latter group looking at the other group with admiration. They may not understand that the difference between themselves is the ability to self-regulate but they are mature enough to understand that there is some sort of difference.
One idea that stood out to me from the article was the fact that co-regulation can occur for children from adults, for children from a peer, but also for adults from children. When I read this, I stopped reading and wondered if my students have ever supported me with co-regulation. I’m sure it happens sometimes without me even knowing it, however, one example is prominent in my memory. Years ago a colleague gifted me a small “how are you feeling?” book that now sits on my desk at work. The different feelings are bound together, you can flip through them individually, choose the one that you want, and then that feeling will be displayed. I hardly touch it anymore but every year the students enjoy trying to guess how I’m feeling. They’ll wander up to my desk and either choose one themselves or they’ll ask me how I’m feeling. Some days they have an easy time guessing how I’m feeling because I’m either obviously having a good day or I’m obviously frustrated with the class. But on days when they ask me, it forces me to stop what I’m doing, think about how I’m feeling, and to respond. Some days it helps me realize that I am actually having a great day with the kids, which in turn improves my mood! I think that this helps me self-regulate by forcing me to control what I’m thinking about and helps me focus on a task.
Another idea that stood out to me from the article was how the author stated that allowing our students to make meaningful choices can help them improve with self-regulating their learning. I often allow my students to make choices such as how to present a project or who to work with on an assignment. But I don’t often structure the choice in the way that the teacher did in the article. I think it would benefit my students more if I asked them questions and provided them with feedback around their choices. For example, we recently did a large research project within which the students were given the choice on how they would present the project – PowerPoint, Prezi, posters, videos, etc. Many students chose the medium that they were most comfortable with or the medium that their friends were using. Some students in the latter group found that this was more difficult because they either lacked the technology to work on it at home or didn’t fully understand how to use the programs. I think if I had asked them some important questions before they chose, it would have helped the students make more meaningful choices.
Dr. Perry provides some background information on the relationship between self-regulation (SR) and self-regulated learning (SRL) in the first few paragraphs of her article “Understanding classroom processes that support children’s self-regulation of learning”. SR is becoming a more widely understood term in today’s classroom but SRL is still a relatively new concept to many teachers. The Canadian Self-Regulation Institute (CSRI) has partnered with Stuart Shanker from the Mehrit Centre to come up with a definition of self-regulation:
“Self-regulation is the capacity to:
• Meet life’s challenges, responding to life’s stressors, returning to a calm and alert state, ready to deal with new circumstances; and
• Rise to life’s potential, supported by optimal conditions for learning, mental health & well-being, social engagement, and thriving.” (http://www.self-regulation.ca/)
This is the definition I have used when teaching teachers what is self-regulation and how can we support students’ growth in learning how to self-regulate. Dr. Perry quotes Zimmerman’s definition of self-regulation as an “individuals’ ability to control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands” (p. 45). What became evident in my own journey of learning about what is self-regulation is that there are various definitions of SR. One thing I did learn was SR is not about compliance.
Dr. Perry’s main focus of study is SRL and not SR. SRL and SR are in my mind are different concepts with SRL being a subsection or component of SR. Even though I am fairly familiar with both these terms having had the opportunity to work with both Stuart Shanker (Mehrit Centre), Mike McKay (CSRI), Dr. Perry and Dr. Butler I struggled while reading the article in trying to differentiate between the two terms. For example, on page 48 Dr. Perry can be quoted as saying “These findings corroborate research in developmental psychology, which indicates self-regulation, generally, is critical to children’s success in school.” SR, or the ability to be calmly, alert and focused (my preferred definition), has been found to be important to children’s success in school. However, my understanding of this article was that SRL is about how classroom teachers can design tasks that encourage students to develop their metacognition, motivation and strategic action while learning and less about the biological, emotional, cognitive, social and prosocial stresses that are key components of SR. I found at times when reading the article that the two terms SR and SRL were used to define or explain the same concept.
My understanding of SRL comes from the Canadian Consortium for Self-Regulation Learners (http://srlcanada.ca/) of which Dr. Perry is a member. SRL Canada states “self-regulated learning is about strategic engagement. Learners are described as self-regulating when they are engaged, thinking, proactive, responsive, and reflective.” I also learned from Dr. Perry, in one of her presentations, that in order to support students active engagement we need to: 1) consider tasks and students’ task understanding, 2) promote student autonomy by giving them choice and control over challenge, 3) encourage student self-assessment and 4) provide instrumental support peer to peer. These concepts were well reviewed and explained in the article. SRL is about raising students’ awareness so that they can make decisions which help them learn better and become more engaged in learning. A concept which is much needed in our classrooms
In this article we are introduced to the concept of self-regulated learning and we learn about the five year study, using case studies, that Dr. Perry and her colleagues undertook to “understanding how (a) characteristics of classroom contexts create opportunities for children to develop and engage in SRL, and (b) helping teachers to design tasks and interact with students in ways that support SRL” (p.47). Dr. Perry is able to demonstrate through her case studies how children can self-regulate their learning when they are engaged in complex, meaningful tasks, making choices and having control over challenge. The importance of the role of self-assessment, peer support and teacher support is also highlighted. Dr. Perry also points out the importance of co-regulation where there is the assumption that one person has more expertise than the other. Co-regulation is a transitional phase whereby learners gradually become more proficient self-regulated leaners through feedback and prompts.
In my experience with mainly high school and middle school students, self-regulated learners became more successful in school. They showed higher motivation and confidence, more on task behaviour, and higher academic achievement. In reading this article I can see that SRL would support students K-12 including students with exceptional learning needs.
In this week’s article, Perry deals with the complex topic of self-regulated learning. Three interrelated elements that Perry identifies as important to the process of self-regulation are metacognition (learning about how they learn), motivation (emotional, etc.) and strategic action (pg. 46). Perry contextualizes self-regulated learning as both independent and social in nature (pg. 46). Perry relates the area of self-regulation as an aspect of Vygotskian theory around the social aspects of learning (p. 46). She does link back to research conducted in this area but also points out that there was a lack of research conducted on younger children. Her methodology is clear and I appreciate the multiple sources of data collected to triangulate her study on younger children.
Self-regulation is important for several reasons. Of particular interest to me was the aspect of students who struggle academically and the benefits of implementing a self-regulated program in the classroom. BC’s refreshed curriculum has moved to a more individualized and personalized approach. It will be interesting to see how children will self-evaluated for their own regulation. One may conclude that the new curriculum is designed so students will have more interest in the topic they are conducting inquiry on and therefore may be able to self-regulate with more success than in a traditional classroom.
At the end of her study, Perry states that she learned that if younger children are engaged in their learning of complex and meaningful tasks where they are autonomous to conduct their work, they engage in meaningful co-regulation (p. 50). One of the key parts of her analysis here is that students are given opportunities to self-evaluate their learning, an aspect that is integral to BC’s new curriculum. I was particularly interested in this article, as the study I am conducting deals with the use of Tribes in a technology based classroom, and the level of student emotional engagement when allowed to use their own devices, but are also accountable to each other. Although Tribes was discussed under social emotional learning, there is also the aspect of co-regulation when students work in small groups that is important to note.
This week’s article is shows results of a research by Nancy Perry on Self regulation. The aim was to find how the characteristics of classroom contexts create opportunities for children to develop and engage in SRL and to help teachers design tasks and interact with students in ways that support SRL. Unlike popular beliefs, self-regulation isn’t about modifying “negative” behaviours and turning them into “positive”, It is about supporting students monitor their emotions, formulate goals, manage social-interactions and to be aware of their academic strengths. The research claims that there is a lot of information about self-regulation at the intermediate level, but not much has been written about on the elementary level. Effective forms of self-regulation in kindergarten predict achievement gains through grade 6 (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). What I find interesting is that according to the research,the practices teachers should adopt to implement SRL seems to be easier to implement at the kindergarten level (which also can be a stereotype on my end).
According to the article, teachers should giving children opportunities to make choices, control challenge, and self-evaluate learning. The problem according to the article is that the choices are not necessarily always equal academically. I can make a connection with my Math program. I am aware that Math can be a struggle. I have given up on using textbooks as the heart of the class and I am using a more student-led approach with multiple centres to choose from. Possibles stations are the games on the iPads, a manipulation area, the textbook, a worksheet with an artistic component. an activity on the Smartboard and games. I have to admit that the motivation of my students and their comprehension has increased but the amount of work I have to put on for one class is tremendous and that’s because students need to have a comfortable challenge or each station. The game has to be as challenging as the textbook and not to be used as a way to getaway from doing work. The stations have to be used in a way where students can be in a setting where they can be in a good place emotionally and academically. On a more positive note, as Perry is mentioning in her article, this teaching method is giving students procedural, organizational and cognitive support. I have students write a Math journal to reflect on their learning. Their journal has to be based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Perry says that without the cognitive/metacognitive support and activity, students may make poor choices, which leads to a second proviso for supporting autonomy and SRL in class-rooms. I think it is quite accurate and it is what is challenging when trying to implement a program. I have given activities that were not challenging enough, and as I am starting, I of course, will not get everything right away. My students were emotionally in good place at first, but the comfortability and fun were too great, learning to no real learning and that’s what very challenging: to find this amount of activities that are relevant to all students at all grade-levels in the classroom. The benefits of the journal is that I can give proper feed-back to all students and I get to have conferences in Math with all students every week or two. Perry says that student’s motivation for learning is revealed in the value they place on personal progress and deep understanding, their willingness to try challenging tasks that prompt self-regulation, and their constructive view of failure (i.e. viewing errors as opportunities to learn). When they get to sit with the teacher, I feel students can self-regulate on their understanding as they do not have to “digest a failure first” and go ask a question after to try to overcome that step. Students can also work on conferences together and work on co-regulation as “they support or co-regulate learning through scaffolding, establishing familiar participation structures, enabling students to support one another, and engaging in non-threatening evaluation practices.” When working in groups, I always assign one student to check on everyone’s self-regulation and to ask everyone about their zone of regulation to make sure the team works efficiently. Some students have the maturity to do so, while others really don’t take it seriously and their immaturity affects the self-regulation of other peers as it frustrates them, which is a challenge in the classroom that isn’t mentioned by Perry.
To conclude, the new BC curriculum focuses on personalized learning, which is an open door to the zones of regulation and to SRL. Perry’s conclusion say that her research indicates children have opportunities to regulate learning in classrooms where they are engaged in complex meaningful tasks, making choices, controlling challenge, and self-evaluating learning, and when they receive support from teachers and peers that is instrumental to SRL and she focuses that she made a difference between laissez-faire and choice. What I find interesting is her challenge sections. She claims that teachers struggle to design and implement complex tasks, which is true and I agree. I am trying this year and I find it hard to be 100% of the time successful as it is a big work load to take on. Perry doesn’t give any tools or examples of when things didn’t work and what a classroom situation looks like when it doesn’t work. She also doesn’t give us cues of what to do when we are facing students who are not taking school seriously. Let’s be honest: most of the time, teachers are motivated to implement a program when they need to target specific students that are disturbing their class or the learning of others. Brief, I feel I will continue to try my hardest to implement a program that is genuine but when I won’t be able to or wont’ have time to create all these possible stations for students, I’ll be happy to rely on programs such as the Zones of regulation http://www.zonesofregulation.com/index.html that I can use when I will “force” students to work on a task that doesn’t involve a choice.
If you are interested in more reading on Math and self-regulation, I invite you to read the following article by Mariza Chatzistamatiou & Irini Dermitzaki http://www.pseve.org/journal/UPLOAD/Chatzistamatiou10-3.pdf
Perry’s paper outlines classroom contexts and characteristics that foster the development of self-regulation (SR) and self-regulated learning (SLR) in elementary school students, with the intention of “helping teachers design tasks and develop practices that support [SR and SLR]” (p. 60). Since I value highly the development of SR and SLR in my students, this paper led me to reflect a lot on my own teaching practice. I realized my teaching has included tasks and practices that have been at times effective, and at times ineffective, at fostering student development of SR and SRL.
One paragraph stood out for me as encompassing all the characteristics that Perry discusses. On page 55, Perry examines the difference between control, structure, and chaos. In a structured classroom, students understand both the requirements and purposes of classroom tasks; they are encouraged to make choices, take risks and attempt autonomy, knowing how and where to get support when needed; they receive support from both the teacher and their peers, and understand how they can support others; they get explicit modeling, coaching, and questioning to reflect on and further develop their own thinking; they understand classroom routines and structures, so that they can focus on current learning; they understand and participate in assessment and evaluation for the purpose of learning. Perry contrasts structure with control, where students do not experience the independence required for development of SR and SRL, and with chaos, where students do not have the guidance necessary to engage in effective learning.
Reflecting on structure in my classroom, and on the collection of characteristics Perry identifies that I see as contained within structure, made me think of a lesson I did with my students this year. Initially, this lesson was not sufficiently structured. I gave students a task to investigate what materials would generate a static electric charge. They were then to work together with their group to write a report and make a recommendation to a hairbrush manufacturer regarding which materials should be used to make a hairbrush that wouldn’t cause static buildup. The authentic purpose of the inquiry was engaging for students. They liked the idea of being consultants; seeing a real life application of what we were studying was motivating.
There were, however, a number of problems with the task. I was not clear enough with students about the purpose of the task (to learn about scientific inquiry as a group). Students had a clear understanding of what to do (what Perry calls “explicit task understanding” (p. 52)), but did not understand the greater purpose (what Perry calls “contextual task understanding” (p. 52)). Additionally, students did not have a sufficient familiarity with participation structures. Something that was specifically problematic was that students did not know how to work together in groups. When I first asked them to discuss their findings with their group, students sat around looking at each other, looking down at their paper, and saying nothing. Upon realization that students were not able to complete the task because they weren’t familiar with group work, I decided to do a lesson on group work. I specifically told the class the purpose was to learn to work in groups (so they had contextual understanding); discussed roles that students might take in group discussions; provided role cards as a form of co-regulation to support students in assigning roles and remembering what to do; and guided students in reflection following group discussions, in order to support metacognitive development and self evaluation, where students would understand what they did as a group member and why, as well as what group behaviours were helpful or unhelpful. We practiced working in a group several times (with accessible, interesting, tasks, so that students could focus their efforts on developing group work skills). We engaged in group reflections and self-reflections. Students’ reflections suggested increased confidence and effectiveness in group discussions, as well as an improved ability to self-regulate and self-direct. We then returned to the initial task of discussing findings and presenting a report. Students worked together effectively, and seemed to enjoy the task. They were self-directed, and each group made choices to personalize their work according to their own interests. What started off as a learning task that was not very effective at supporting SR and SRL became effective.
Reflecting on this and on the reading, I believe I will be able to better plan in the future to support student development of self-regulation. As both my personal experience and the research reported on by Perry demonstrate that SR is a powerful contributor to achievement, confidence, and self-efficacy, effectively fostering SR and SLR in my students is very important to me.
Perry (2013) examines the importance of self-regulated learning (SRL) in our education system. Zimmerman (2008) states that “self-regulation refers to individuals’ ability to control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands” (p.45). Perry describes characteristics that are commonly attributed to self-regulated learners: they control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands, resist distractions, persist through difficult tasks, flexible in a wide range of contexts, and can apply self-regulation to control cognition, emotion and behaviour. These students also use strategies to overcome things that they may not know or be good at. When individuals work with at least one other person, “shared regulation” can occur though positive collaborative behaviour. On the other hand “co-regulation” assumes “at least one participant in an interaction has knowledge or skills that others need to achieve a goal” (p.46). The key to both shared and co-regulation is that they require “socially responsible self-regulation” which of course requires a lot teaching and practising from a very early age.
At SET-BC I continuously hear teachers and administrators throughout British Columbia set goals for their students to become more independent by gaining the ability to select technology that will be the most meaningful for their individual learning styles. These educators realize that it’s going to take a process of trial and error and require a lot of patience. To have students become more “independent” is very similar to “self-regulation” but to me there are different connotations for each word. “Independent” typically focuses on the academic aspect of learning whereas “self-regulation” includes a variety of capabilities, such as emotional, social and academic contexts. Regardless of the term, I think it’s great that so many educators are focusing on addressing individual needs and differences. Perry states that “children regulate learning in classrooms where they have opportunities to engage in complex meaningful tasks, make choices, control challenge, and self-evaluate learning” (p.45). Self-regulation is such a complex, but vital aspect of our students’ education.
To my surprise, this week I heard teachers from the Surrey and West Vancouver school districts mention “zones of regulation.” These school districts have taken the initiative to implement a framework with the vocabulary and practices of self-regulation. “Research indicates children have opportunities to regulate learning in classrooms where they are engaged in complex meaningful tasks, making choices, controlling challenge, and self-evaluating learning, and when they receive support from teachers and peers that is instrumental to SRL” (p.60). At the elementary level, students are beginning to recognize what zone they are in, strategies to cope, and assess the best means to get into the “green zone.” Teachers have told me that developing emotional, sensory and social regulation techniques have helped to decrease behaviourial issues and increase motivation, engagement, independence and self-worth. Students are able to recognize when they are calm, alert and ready to learn in the “green zone” versus being in either the blue, yellow or red zones. Within one particular Surrey elementary school, only half of the teachers participated in the Zones of Regulation program last year, whereas this year, they have almost 100% buy in. In this school, since the teachers, administrators, parents and students are constantly and consistently talking about self-regulation, it has become a “normal” everyday part of their lives. Students are starting to recognize and verbalize their emotions and alertness at a very early age. Parents have stated that they are so grateful for this program because the self-regulation techniques have transferred to the students’ home lives as well. The teachers excitedly tell me that when I come into their classrooms and schools, not only will the emphasis on self-regulation be noticeable, but I will be able to observe many students engaging in self-regulating techniques as it is a daily occurrence. I am eager to get into these schools to see how a theory and plan has successfully turned into action.
Perry’s article was a very good document for teachers to reference in order to make sure that they are providing complex work that challenges children and allows them to try solutions to solve problems. She talks about the optimal challenge in order that students are interested in working for a solution and not just taking the easy way out. The way the teacher interacts with the class will determine whether students are willing to take risks and work on the more challenging problems, or whether they will just take the easy way out in order to achieve what is necessary for the teacher to give a good grade.
Perry makes a good argument for using a case study approach in order to achieve accurate unbiased results. It is not surprising that self-reporting from teachers and students could result in data that is not always relevant to the study. It also makes sense that the case study method allows for more realistic results as it creates more fluid, social situations in the classroom. The use of authentic activities is also more likely to give results that will be valued by teachers, as they relate to the actual classroom environment.
“When children have opportunities to make meaningful choices in the context of learning, as they did in Laura’s classroom, their interest and perceived competence for tasks are increased and they are more likely to increase effort and persist when the work is challenging (Stefanou et al., 2004; Turner, 1997; Turner & Paris, 1995).” (Perry, 2013, p. 54)
This reading of this article was timely, as staff at my school have been discussing how ill prepared students are when they arrive for kindergarten. We have been pulling our hair out trying to catch kids up that arrive so far behind. With the children far behind in so many areas of learning, including social, it is a constant battle to try to get the children to self regulate at an age appropriate level. The ability for older students to work on challenging assignments instead of just taking the easy route is a choice that seems to be happening less in the last few years as the children are attaining less self regulation in the preschool years. I realize that self regulation in the pre school years looks much different that in the grade 7 classroom, but the mindset is similar and one that needs to start at a young age if the older students are able to regulate, co-regulate and demonstrate shared regulation at challenging levels.
“While the preponderance of the research on SRL has involved students in the intermediate grades and beyond, recent research involving very young children (preschool and into kindergarten) is beginning to link low levels of self-regulation before school to academic difficulties in school.” (Duncan, Claessens et al., 2007; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; McClelland & Tominey, 2011).
Perry (2013) describes how classroom processes can support children’s development and engagement in self-regulation and self-regulated learning (SRL). Through her research in primary (K-5) classrooms in BC, she highlights the strengths and limitations of SRL, and discusses the impacts of classroom practices on SRL. Perry illustrates the importance of strategies that promote self-regulation, noting they, “have proven effective for improving achievement in students who struggle academically, including students with exceptional learning needs, such as learning and developmental disabilities” (pg. 47).
Perry acknowledges the impact of students who come to school with self-regulation strategies, in contrast to those who don’t. “Children with low levels of self-regulation before school, have difficulties in school” (pg. 45). In BC, there are a number of ministry initiatives (ie. success by 6; strong start) that support the acquisition of self-regulation in early years learning.
In West Vancouver, we have had a strong district focus on self-regulation and the implementation of self-regulation strategies in our classrooms for a number of years now. This was ignited by the work of Stuart Shankar, and further explored in a district wide key note presentation. Since that time, self-regulated learning has been at the forefront in West Vancouver Schools. Perry notes, “children have opportunities to self-regulate learning in classrooms where they are engaged in complex meaningful tasks and where student autonomy, including choice, control over challenge, and opportunities to self-evaluate learning, is promoted and supported through highly effective forms of co-regulation” (pg. 50). I feel like this statement is also inline with the revised BC curriculum which promotes interdisciplinary units of inquiry. These units encourage the creation of meaningful tasks, as well as student autonomy. Another example of this are the core competencies. Students are encouraged to engage in self-reflective learning at every opportunity.
So what does SRL mean for our students today? We know that when students have the ability to self-regulate their learning, their achievement increases. Therefore all stakeholders should be invested in supporting self-regulation and self-regulated learning for students both as they enter into our educational system, but also as they progress though it.
The main focus of this weeks article was to describe and explain the classroom processes that support children’s self-regulation of their learning (SRL). The author makes an effort to describe the teacher’s role and the student’s role within self-regulated learning. I like the principles and benefits of how SRL is giving students opportunities to make choices, control challenge and encouraging students to self evaluate their learning. I appreciated reading this article because it described SRL as it relates to young children. As a beginning researcher I appreciated reading about the steps in her research process. As a teacher I connected to her examples with young children because I teach a similar grade. I appreciated her writing about how teachers created SRL lessons and her descriptions of what’s going on in the classroom when SRL ideas are being used.
Perry began by defining self regulation (SRL), according to Zimmerman, as an “individuals ability to control thoughts and actions to achieve personal goals and respond to environmental demands”. I am interested in this definition because if refers to an individuals ability to control thoughts and actions. I have considered my grade 2 or 3 students within these ideas and wondered how much control they really demonstrate at that age. In my experience, I notice 2 main things. Some young children are not encouraged to be independent. Instead they conditioned in their young lives to have everything laid out and planned for them by the adults around them. Often they have very little opportunity to inquire, ask questions or make their own choices, and then when they come to school they are expecting everything to be laid out for them. According to the article, children who struggle with regulatory processes have difficulty adjusting to school.
Without the proper understanding of “ what they need to do”, young children can become upset, due to their lack of experience to deal an independent learning opportunity. Second, Many students have limited language skills, or complicated behaviour needs so its challenging to implement self regulated learning when the range of abilities spans at least 4 grade level and so many students require direct one on one support to follow along with the task or instructions. As a teacher if I make a greater effort to engage my students with that be enough to get them interested. As we beginning teaching the new BC Curriculum I can see why self-regulated learning is relevant and necessary. I wonder about the complications faced when teaching in a classroom of diverse learners and abilities. Perry states “Highly effective teachers often tailor the choices they give to individual students to meet their particular learning needs” (Perry, 54).
As teacher’s we are facing significant shifts in how we should teach in the 21 century and SRL fits within the goals of the 21-century learning context. Although we have been discussing SRL for 3-4 years it wasn’t until this year that my colleagues started to plan for SRL in our lesson plans and lessons. I have attended Professional Development opportunities where fellow Surrey Teachers are starting to create learning opportunities with SRL. I’m gradually incorporating these ideas into my practice, but with limited use and success. After reading this article I understand that I should ensure that I am designing lessons with meaningful tasks, opportunities for choice, multiple goals, focus on large chunks of learning, lessons extend over time, allow for scaffolding and creating of diverse products to demonstrate learning.
I enjoyed reading this article, but would still like to learn more about the challenges faced when implementing SRL.