I am coming to realize that simply creating space for autonomy in the classroom is not sufficient for the development of it, or the subsequent benefits of it. I can provide choice to my students, but without sufficient scaffolding, those students may not experience success in their tasks. Cleary and Zimmerman describe the Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP) which tries to nurture autonomy from a self-efficacy perspective (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004). It is also becoming evident to me that choice and self-efficacy form a loop, for while success in tasks that involve choice require self-efficacy, self-efficacy is developed best by giving students the opportunity to succeed in tasks that involve choice. We are told that students who are not given sufficient academic and personal choices “may develop self-defeating cycles of self-motivational beliefs” (Eccles et. al., in Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004: 537). Ana is a student in the case-study outlined in this article. It is first established that Ana fits into the normal range in terms of her intellectual potential but that she had been using poor strategies (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004: 545). Through the SREP, Ana graphs her grades and comes to understand that her success is determined by the ineffective strategies she had been using “rather than uncontrollable factors such as her ability, teacher difficulty, or test difficulty.” (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004: 547) This graphing process strikes me as a particularly powerful tool because it attempts to prove to the student that they are capable without belittling them with meaningless (or possibly detrimental) praise. It gets to the core and with any luck influences the self-talk of the student. As well, this strategy puts control squarely back in the hands of the student: There is a solution to this problem, and it is within your [the student’s] power. It simultaneously promotes self efficacy and demands autonomy, tying the two together very tidily.

Along a similar thread, we look at how self-regulation and social-emotional learning in general are connected. Self-efficacy seems to me to be intricately connected to relationships and surrounding social conditions for many children. One interesting perspective on this topic that I have been reading about is that of Attachment Theory. Christi and David Bergin provide a highly informative and practical approach to supporting strong attachment in the classroom. While there is no way of ensuring that students develop attachment to you as a teacher, similar attachment encouraging behaviours can be used by the teacher to promote strong relationships that will encourages student well-being and success (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Yet again, these authors demonstrate how important autonomy is in student learning, emphasizing that overbearing and controlling adult figures are counter-productive to strong attachments with children (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). On the flip side, secure attachment is associated with less dependency and children who are more willing to explore their environments, thus indulging their natural curiosity and learning on their own (Bergin & Bergin, 2009).

So. Take away message: Social-emotional learning matters. Feeling competent and feeling safe are also important in student engagement. Maybe choice isn’t all there is to it?