Adapted from Pintrich However, there is empirical data on the validation of the MSLQ, questionnaire that is the initial empirical work in which Pintrich based his SRL model. That instrument will be analyzed in the next section. The MSLQ is composed of 15 scales, divided into a motivation section with 31 items, and a learning strategies SRL section with 50 items which are subdivided into three general types of scales: cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management Duncan and McKeachie, Two versions of the questionnaire have been developed for college Pintrich et al.
The model has been cited a significant number of times despite being recently published. The model is grounded in classic socio-cognitive theory Bandura, , as stated by the author herself. Efklides has been influenced by the existing SRL models, along with metacognitive models such as those created by Dunlosky and Metcalfe , Ariel et al. The distinction of Efklides with the metacognitive models mentioned is that hers is theoretically grounded on previous SRL models e. Therefore, it is composed of: a cognition, b motivation, c self-concept, d affect, e volition, f metacognition in the form of metacognitive knowledge, and g metacognition in the form of metacognitive skills.
Adapted from Efklides Importantly, the model also illustrates how students perform during the task execution, the phase with the highest cognitive load where all the cognitive resources are leading the activity. Efklides explored the basic MASRL features that have received empirical support by reviewing a compelling amount of evidence from the last two decades.
Then she argued that research showing interactions among metacognition, motivation, and affect at the two levels and their interaction actually supports the model. First, Dermitzaki and Efklides constructed a questionnaire to measure self-concept for a language task. Secondly, Efklides created the Metacognitive Experiences Questionnaire, which explores judgments and feelings about cognitive processing.
In that paper, the relationship between metacognitive experiences and performance was explored, as well as the effect of task difficulty on metacognitive experiences. One of their premises is that, despite the advantages of collaboration and computer-supported collaboration for learning Dillenbourg et al. To collaborate effectively, group members need to commit themselves to group work, establish a shared common ground, and negotiate and share their task perceptions, strategies, and goals Hadwin et al.
The key issue in SSRL is that it builds on and merges individual and social processes, and it is not reducible to an individual level. It is explained by the activity of the social entity in a learning situation Greeno and van de Sande, , including situational affordances that provide opportunities for SSRL to happen Volet et al.
Socially shared regulated learning model 1. What are the significant changes between the model version and the forthcoming version? In their forthcoming proposal, they have shifted the focus to the effects of collaborating alone and have not discussed the microanalytic approach in such detail. During the first loop, groups negotiate and construct shared task perceptions based on internal and external task conditions. Through the second loop, groups set shared goals for the task and make plans about how to approach the task together. In the third loop, groups strategically coordinate their collaboration and monitor their progress.
Based on this monitoring activity, the groups can change their task perceptions, goals, plans, or strategies in order to optimize their collective activity. Finally, in the fourth loop, groups evaluate and regulate for future performance. Socially shared regulated learning model 2. Adapted from Hadwin et al.
This addition clarifies, especially, the meta cognitive processing at the three regulatory modes along with the effects on motivation and emotion Hadwin et al. The SSRL authors have been working toward empirical verification of their model e.
What is Self-Regulation? (+95 Skills and Strategies)
Meanwhile, other researchers have also conducted a growing number of studies on SSRL. First, different levels of social regulation were identified: a less balanced type called co-regulation, in which one member of the group takes the lead; and a jointly regulated type, in which goals are negotiated and strategies are shared, known as SSRL. Because of this, those authors proposed to reconceptualize how the CoRL and SSRL modes intertwine, which constitutes one of the main changes in the forthcoming version of the model.
Secondly, empirical evidence of the occurrence of SSRL in cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and emotional shared areas were found. This finding is important, as it shows that shared regulation happens within all SRL areas. And third, there was evidence that SSRL might promote learning and performance.
Commitment to Privacy
Additionally, new research published after the review has continued strengthening the empirical evidence around the model e. At this time, no classical measurement instruments e. Because of the contextual nature of interpersonal regulation of learning Vauras and Volet, , new methodologies have been developed to investigate SSRL.
Current instruments combine scaffolding and measures in context as, for example, a computer-supported environment to promote group awareness, planning, and evaluation e. Additionally, the joint effort of the model authors has been in developing multi-modal data collections including objective data e.
Next, the models will be compared in the following categories. Second, all the models are divided into different SRL phases and subprocesses. They are compared here, to extract conclusions. Thirdly, there are three main areas that SRL explores; meta cognition, motivation, and emotion; therefore, their positioning in each of the six models is analyzed. One word of advice before starting this section: the number of citations garnered is an indicator that can be influenced by aspects not related exclusively to the quality of the model.
Important innovations can actually be made by models that have not received so many cites. Nevertheless, it is an interesting indicator to extract some conclusions from.
Nevertheless, they show promising numbers in citations per year, which indicates their relevance. There are two probable causes. One is that the first ones are more comprehensive and easier to understand and apply in classrooms Dignath et al. If we compare these four models figures, it is salient that Zimmerman and Pintrich a present more specific subprocesses than Boekaerts and b include motivational and emotional aspects that are not directly presented by Winne and Hadwin. This is not to say that these two models are less relevant than the others; on the contrary, both cover in depth two critical aspects for SRL: emotion regulation and metacognition.
- Login using?
- Sheru aur chiriya ghar ke jaanvar (Sheru Puttar Bilingual Books Book 4)!
All of the model authors agree that SRL is cyclical, composed of different phases and subprocesses. However, the models present different phases and subprocesses, and by identifying them we can extract some conclusions. What is the conceptualization of SRL phases in the two added models? First, Efklides does not clearly state an appraisal phase in her model, although she considers that the Person level is influenced after repeated performances of a task. What can be concluded? First, some models emphasize a clearer distinction among the phases and the subprocesses that occur in each of them. It is only through the text accompanying the figure that Winne and Hadwin clarified that they were proposing four phases.
One implication from this distinctive difference could be in how to intervene according to the different models. The first group of models might allow for more specific interventions because the measurement of the effects might be more feasible. For example, if a teacher recognizes that one of her students has a motivation problem while performing a task, applying some of the subprocesses presented by Zimmerman at that particular phase e.
On the other hand, the second group of models might suggest more holistic interventions, as they perceive the SRL as a more continuous process composed of more inertially related subprocesses. This hypothesis, though, would need to be explored in the future. Next, the three main areas of SRL activity and how each model conceptualizes them will be explored. It is important to clarify that the levels were conceptualized, not as being close in nature, but rather, as being positions on a continuum.
Three levels are considered with regard to meta cognition.
The first level includes models with a strong emphasis on meta cognition. However, due to the fact that the SSRL version did not emphasize meta cognition, it was decided to locate it after the two more metacognitive models. At the third level, Boekaerts includes the use of meta cognitive strategies in her figures, but does not explicitly refer to specific strategies.
A two-level classification is proposed. The Zimmerman, Boekaerts, and Pintrich models are at the first level. Those pathways are the ones that lead the regulatory actions that the students do or do not activate e. It is also important to mention that Pintrich conducted the first research that explored the role of goal orientation in SRL Pintrich and de Groot, SSRL included motivation in the version figure and emphasized its role in collaborative learning situations, but without differentiating motivational components in detail.
Nevertheless, the authors have conducted a significant amount of research regarding motivation and its regulation at the group level e. Finally, Winne and Hadwin and Efklides included motivation in their models, but it is not their main focus of analysis. Three levels are proposed. For Boekaerts, ego protection plays a crucial role in the well-being pathway, and for that reason it is essential for students to have strategies to regulate their emotions, so that they will instead activate the learning pathway.
At the second level, Pintrich and Zimmerman shared similar interpretations of emotions.
They both put the most emphasis on the reactions i. Nevertheless, in the preparatory phases, neither of them mentions emotions directly. Yet, Zimmerman argues that self-efficacy, which is included in his forethought phase, is a better predictor of performance at that phase than emotions or emotion regulation Zimmerman, B. Nonetheless, these authors clearly argue that collaborative learning situations present significant emotional challenges, and they have conducted empirical studies exploring this matter e.
Finally, Efklides and Winne and Hadwin e. However, they do not place a major emphasis on emotion-regulation strategies. As mentioned earlier, three additional areas in which the models present salient differences were identified. The first model that included this categorization of self-regulation was Boekaerts and Niemivirta On the other hand, bottom—up is the well-being pathway in which students activate goals to protect their self-concept i. Efklides also uses this categorization, but with different implications. Bottom—up occurs when the regulation is data-driven, i. In other words, the cognitive processes are the main focus when the student is trying to perform a task.
Related Emotion, Motivation, and Self-regulation: A Handbook for Teachers
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved