Paris & Paris (2001) - Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning

Self-Regulated Learning

Posted on

Summary

The authors begin by identifying some historical trends in self-regulated learning (SRL) research. As with the textbook, they indicate that SRL can be viewed through many lenses, but stress that “there is a need to identify explicitly the practical applications of SRL to classrooms” (p. 90). They identify several distinctions between then-contemporary investigations and historical investigations: first, the units investigated have gradually increased in scope, from individuals to classrooms; second, “the variety and relevance of strategies has increased”- classifications and tactics have increased; third, strategies have been shown to be successful in different environments; fourth, awareness and use found its way into classrooms (p. 90).

Strategy training has changed its face in the 30 years leading up to the article; they identify the progression of incorporating metacognition, then motivation and emotion into learning strategies, then eventually moving from laboratories to classrooms. In doing so, “the complexity of learning was recognized in the interactions among knowledge, skills, and ispositions for all disciplines” (p. 91). They identify many skills (metacognition, motivation/control, self-efficacy, volitional control, emotion control) as necessary in self-regulated learning.

Reading and writing appear as low-hanging fruit for researchers where SRL is concerned; they identify issues that face learners at different levels (pre-reading, early reading, and then levels as students progress throughout schooling), then situate specific strategies within an SRL framework. In particular, strategies that used to exist in a disparate way in a laboratory setting began to merge into a larger SRL umbrella because of “the growing realization that the effective use of literary strategies depended on awareness of procedural, declarative, and conditional knowledge, as well as motivational attributions and feelings of efficacy” (p. 92). In the spirit of the increased grain size that they mention, they cite a study by Graham (1998) in which executive control strategies were sixth-graders were ivestigated. They found that “providing students with support in managing and coordinating their plans and decisions had positive effects on their revising behavior… and the quality of the text that they produced” (p. 92). Similarly, Page-Voth and Graham (1999) looked at goal-setting strategies in seventh- and eighth-graders; they concluded that “students who learned the goal-setting strategy wrote longer papers, included more supporting reasons, an produced qualitatively better essays” than students who had not. Successful interventions, then, have several key features: “provide a rich variety of strategies”; “share specific strategy information that is required” for students to develop a situational awareness for deployment of specific strategies; “causal attribution of improved performance to the effective application of effort in using the strategy”; effective strategies “can be learned from peers by engaging students in situations that make strategy use observable and salient”; use strategies as “part of larger plans for managing one’s effort, resources, and emotions”; embed “strategies in daily activities so that teachers and students have opportunities to practice the strategies in authentic activities” (p. 93).

Investigations into cognitive engagement “emphasize how features of academic tasks influence the quality of students’ learning” (p. 93). SRL relies on how the cognitive engagement is oriented in instructional design tasks. Turner (1995) found that “open-ended tasks that promote thorughtful engagement include opportunities for students to make choices, exercise control, set challenging goals, collaborate with others, construct personal meaning, and derive feelings of self-efficacy as a consequence of their engagement with the task (Paris & Turner, 1994). Problem-based learning is a specific approach which could encourage SRL; Marx, Blumenfeld, Karjcik, and Soloway (1997) identified several elements for its implementation: a central question around which instruction is based, which is “worthwile, meaningful, and feasible”; projects must be situated as investigations in which “students plan, design, and conduct real-world research that includes asking questions, designing experiments, collecting and analyzing ideas, and drawing inferences”; students should “create artifacts that are tangible results of the investigation process and reflect their understanding”; peer collaboration with other students and other entities like teachers or experts; integrated use of “technological tools, which allow authentic investigations and support deep understandings” (p. 94). Provided that the PBL is appropriately designed, it should require SRL. It engages with different strategies for learning, student choice and agency in how learning is approached, and requires metacognition.

Self-assessment “includes all three domains of SRL: cognitive, motivational, and affective” (p. 95). Assessment doesn’t need to be in a strictly academic sense; other modes which engage multiple domains are also possible. Citing Zimmerman (2000), they note that “when students are able to interpret their own accomplishments with pride, their perceptions of ability and efficacy increase”, and Schunk and Ertmer (2000) in saying that “periodic, but not too frequent, self-evaluation complements learning goals and helps students to maintain high levels of self-efficacy” (p. 95). In the same way that closed tasks “foster routine responses instead of thoughtful engagement”, “assessments that allow little personal responsiveness provide few opportunities for students to practice monitoring, planning, and regulating their own learning” (p. 95). Another tool that could help are portfolios, as they incorporate useful elements from other strategies (reviewing samples, record keeping and progress monitoring, making choices, conducting meetings, evaluating, and sharing). Measurement of self-assessment is lacking in the literature base, though. Van Kraayenoord and Paris (1997) investigated this, and asked the following to students: explain difficult work and work that they could be proud of; identify work that could serve as exemplar; showcase their progress; identify their feelings about self-review; explain how they shared work and feedback (p. 95-96). The findings indicated that “students are ablet o asses their own work and provide both cognitive and affective evaluations” and that “there was developmental improvement in self-assessment in 8- to 12-year-olds”, with larger ability shown in older students (p. 96).

The big punchline for the article is a summary of SRL research, organized in a list:

  1. Self-appraisal leads to a deeper understanding of learning.
    1. Analyzing personal styles and strategies of learning, and comparing them with the strategies of others, increases personal awareness of different ways of learning.
    2. Evaluating what you know and what you do not know, as well as discerning your personal depth of understanding about key points, promotes efficient effort allocation.
    3. Periodic self-assessment of learning processes and outcomes is a useful habit to develop because it promotes monitoring of progress, stimulates repair strategies, and promotes feelings of self-efficacy.
  2. Self-management of thinking, effort, and affect promotes flexible approaches to problem solving that are adaptive, persistent, self-controlled, strategic, and goal-oriented.
    1. Setting appropriate goals that are attainable yet challenging are most effective when chosen by the individual and when they embody a mastery orientation rather than a performacne goal.
    2. Managing time and resources through effective planning and monitoring is essential to setting priorities, overcoming frustration, and persisting to task completion.
    3. Reviewing one’s own learning, revising the approach, or even starting anew, may indicate self-monitoring and a personal commitment to high standards of performance.
  3. Self-regulation can be taught in diverse ways.
    1. Self-regulation can be taught with explicit instruction, directed reflection, metacognitive discussions, and participation in practices with experts.
    2. Self-regulation can be promoted indirectly by modeling and by activities that entail reflective analyses of learning.
    3. Self-regulation can be promoted by assessing, charting, and discussing evidence of personal growth.
  4. Self-regulation is woven into the narrative experiences and the identity strivings of each individual.
    1. How individuals choose to appraise and monitor their own behavior is usually consistent with their preferred or desired identity.
    2. Gaining an autobiographical perspective on education and learning provides a narrative framework that deepens personal awareness of self-regulation
    3. Participation in a reflective community enhances the frequency and depth of examination of one’s self-regulation habits. (p. 97-98)

My Thoughts

I really like the ideas that are collected in this article, and it’s nice and convenient to have that list about self-regulated learning. I need to sit down and think about engaging in some of these strategies explicitly (such as the self-assessment) for use in future courses.

Citations

Paris, S.G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 36:2, 89-101, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3602_4

Tags: EPSY5463 Self-Regulated Learning