Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- References 57
- Self-Regulation and Learning
- Social Cognitive Theory 67
- Self-Regulation and Volition 74 Development of Self-Regulation in Children 74 Self-Regulation and the Curriculum
- THEORETICAL FORMULATIONS Operant Theory
|
CONCLUSION The premise underlying information processing theory is that human mental life consists of building and manipulating men- tal representations. The information processing view has im- portant implications for education, including implications for how to improve instruction in subject matter areas such as read- ing, writing, and mathematics. Research and theory on human information processing points to the reciprocal relation be- tween psychology and education: Educational practice can be improved when it is informed by an understanding of how the human mind works, and theories of how the human mind works can be improved when they are informed by studies involving how students perform on authentic academic tasks.
56 Memory and Information Processes Admittedly, the information processing approach is lim- ited. For example, by focusing mainly on cognition in indi- vidual learners, it fails to incorporate affective, motivational, emotional, social, and biological aspects of learning and in- struction. All of these aspects must eventually be integrated into a far-reaching theory of how the human mind works. One promising approach is to include motivational strategies along with cognitive strategies in teaching students how to learn (Mayer, 2002). Yet the information processing approach—now a domi- nant force in psychology for nearly half a century—also leaves a worthwhile legacy. The information processing ap- proach enabled the rebirth of cognitive psychology by pro- viding an alternative to behaviorism, created a unified framework that stimulated useful research and theory, high- lighted the role of mental representations and cognitive processes, and fostered the transition toward studying cogni- tion in more authentic contexts. Many of the current ad- vances in educational research—ranging from cognitive strategy instruction to the psychology of subject matter— were enabled by the information processing approach in psy- chology. Examples were provided in the foregoing sections, but much more work is needed. Overall, the information processing approach continues to play a constructive role in the development of educationally relevant theories of how the human mind works. In particu- lar, the constructivist view of learners as sense makers and mental model builders offers a potentially powerful concep- tion of human cognition. A particularly useful approach in- volves the refinement of techniques for analyzing academic tasks into constituent processes that can be evaluated and taught.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruickshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A pro- posed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of learning and motivation research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Baddeley, A. L. (1998). Human memory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What readers know. New York: Academic Press. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717– 726.
Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for proce- dural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155–192. Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Cognitive Development, 48, 1–8. Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for learning. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182. Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology,
De La Mettrie, J. O. (1912). Man a machine. La Salle, IL: Open Court. (Original work published 1748) Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory. New York: Dover. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and sub- traction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on math- ematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: Macmillan. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, D., & Dogan, N. (1982). Writing and revising persuasive documents: Cognitive demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 557–567. Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 97–128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). The computer and the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109–129. Kohler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Liveright. Lachman, R., Lachman, J. L., & Butterfield, E. C. (1979). Cognitive
Leary, D. E. (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
References 57 Levy, C. M., & Ransdall, S. (Eds.). (1996). The science of writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewis, A. B. (1989). Training students to represent arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363–371. Lewis, A. B., & Mayer, R. E. (1987). Students’ miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problems. Journal of
Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of
Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text signaling devices and their effects on read- ing and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.
Markman, E. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elemen- tary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Devel- opment, 50, 643–655. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide to multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychol-
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive ap- proach. New York: HarperCollins. Mayer, R. E. (1992a). Cognition and instruction: On their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational
Mayer, R. E. (1992b). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: Freeman. Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: MIT Press. Mayer, R. E. (1996a). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology’s second metaphor.
Mayer, R. E. (1996b). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Learn- ing in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Teach- ing for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1996). The process of understanding mathematics problems. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, R. E., Sims, V. K., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–460.
Metcalfe, J. (1986a). Feeling of knowing in memory and pro- blem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 288–294. Metcalfe, J. (1986b). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238–246. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. New York: Elsevier. Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Paige, J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1966). Cognitive processes in solv- ing algebra word problems. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem
Wiley.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the
Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruc- tion that really improves children’s academic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems.
Soloway, E., Lochhead, J., & Clement, J. (1982). Does computer programming enhance problem solving ability? Some pos- itive evidence on algebra word problems. In R. J. Seidel, R. E. Anderson, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer literacy (pp. 171–189). New York: Academic Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and
Sternberg, R. J., & Ketron, J. L. (1982). Selection and implementa- tion of strategies in reasoning by analogy. Journal of Educa-
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. Taylor, B. (1980). Children’s memory for expository text after read- ing. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 399–411. Thorndike, E. L. (1965). Animal intelligence. New York: Hafner. Vosniadou, S., Pearson, P. D., & Rogers, T. (1988). What causes children’s failures to detect inconsistencies in text? Represen- tation versus comparison difficulties. Journal of Educational
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376. CHAPTER 4 Self-Regulation and Learning DALE H. SCHUNK AND BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN 59 THEORETICAL FORMULATIONS 59
RESEARCH FOCUS AREAS 68
INTERVENTIONS TO ENHANCE SELF-REGULATION 72 AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH 73 Self-Regulation and Volition 74 Development of Self-Regulation in Children 74 Self-Regulation and the Curriculum 74 Self-Regulation Across the Life Span 75 CONCLUSION 75 REFERENCES 75 Current theoretical accounts of learning view students as ac- tive seekers and processors of information. Learners’ cogni- tions can influence the instigation, direction, and persistence of achievement behaviors (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 1998). This chapter discusses the role of self-regulation during learning. Self-regulation (or self-regulated learning) refers to learning that results from students’self-generated thoughts and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward the attain- ment of their learning goals. Self-regulated learning involves goal-directed activities that students instigate, modify, and sus- tain (Zimmerman, 1994, 1998)—for example, attending to in- struction, processing of information, rehearsing and relating new learning to prior knowledge, believing that one is capable of learning, and establishing productive social relationships and work environments (Schunk, 1995). Self-regulated learn- ing fits well with the notion that rather than being passive re- cipients of information, students contribute actively to their learning goals and exercise control over goal attainment. As we show in this chapter, theory and research attest to the links between self-regulation and achievement processes. We begin by explaining five theoretical perspectives on self-regulation: operant theory, information processing theory, developmental theory, social constructivist theory, and social cognitive theory. With this theoretical background in place, we discuss self-regulation research that identified self-regulatory processes and examined how self-regulatory processes operate during learning. We also describe in detail an intervention designed to enhance students’ self-regulation. We conclude by suggesting that future research address such topics as the links between self-regulation and volition, the development of self-regulation in children, the integration of self-regulation into educational curricula, and self-regulation across the life span.
The views of operant psychologists about self-regulation de- rive primarily from the work of Skinner (1953). Operant be- havior is emitted in the presence of discriminative stimuli. Whether behavior becomes more or less likely to occur in the future depends on its consequences. Behaviors that are rein- forced are more likely to occur, whereas those punished become less likely. For example, a teacher might praise a stu- dent after the student studies hard during a class period. The praise may encourage the student to continue studying hard. Conversely, if a teacher criticizes a student after the student misbehaves, the criticism may decrease the likelihood of dis- ruptive behavior. Operant theorists have studied how individuals establish discriminative stimuli and reinforcement contingencies (Brigham, 1982). Self-regulated behavior involves choosing 60 Self-Regulation and Learning among alternative courses of action (Mace, Belfiore, & Shea, 1989), typically by deferring an immediate reinforcer in favor of a different and usually greater future reinforcer (Rachlin, 1991). For example, assume that Brad is having difficulty studying; he spends insufficient time studying and is easily distracted. A key to changing his behavior is to es- tablish discriminative stimuli (cues) for studying. With the assistance of his school counselor, Brad establishes a definite time and place for studying (6:00 to 9:00 p.m. in his room with two 10-min breaks). To eliminate distracting cues, Brad agrees not to use the phone, CD player, or TV during this pe- riod. For reinforcement, Brad will award himself one point for each night he successfully accomplishes his routine. When he receives 10 points, he has earned a night off. From an operant theory perspective, one decides which be- haviors to regulate, establishes discriminative stimuli for their occurrence, evaluates performance according to whether it matches the standard, and administers reinforcement. The three key subprocesses are self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement.
Self-monitoring refers to deliberate attention to some aspect of one’s behavior, and often is accompanied by recording its frequency or intensity (Mace & Kratochwill, 1988). People cannot regulate their actions if they are not aware of what they do. Behaviors can be assessed on such dimensions as quality, rate, quantity, and originality. While writing a term paper, students may periodically assess their work to deter- mine whether it states important ideas, whether they will fin- ish it by the due date, whether it will be long enough, and whether it integrates their ideas in unusual fashion. One can engage in self-monitoring in such diverse areas as motor skills (how fast one runs the 100-m dash), art (how original one’s pen-and-ink drawings are), and social behavior (how much one talks at social functions). Often students must be taught self-monitoring methods (Belfiore & Hornyak, 1998; Lan, 1998; Ollendick & Hersen, 1984; Shapiro, 1987). Methods include narrations, frequency counts, duration measures, time-sampling measures, behav- ior ratings, and behavioral traces and archival records (Mace et al., 1989). Narrations are written accounts of behavior and the context in which it occurs. Narrations can range from very detailed to open-ended (Bell & Low, 1977). Frequency
during a given period (e.g., number of times a student turns around in his or her seat during a 30-min seatwork exercise).
curs during a given period (e.g., number of minutes a student studies during 30 min). Time-sampling measures divide a pe- riod into shorter intervals and record how often a behavior occurs during each interval. A 30-min study period might be divided into six 5-min periods; for each 5-min period, stu- dents record whether they studied the entire time. Behavior
ing a given time (e.g., always, sometimes, never). Behavioral traces and archival records are permanent records that exist independently of other assessments (e.g., number of work- sheets completed, number of problems solved correctly). When self-recording is not used, people’s memory of suc- cesses and failures becomes more selective and their beliefs about outcomes do not faithfully reflect actual outcomes. Self-recording often yields surprising results. Students hav- ing difficulties studying who keep a written record of their activities may learn they are wasting most of their study time on nonacademic tasks. Two important self-monitoring criteria are regularity and proximity (Bandura, 1986). Regularity means observing be- havior continually rather than intermittently, such as by keep- ing a daily record rather than recording behavior once a week. Nonregular observation requires accurate memory and often yields misleading results. Proximity means observing behavior close in time to its occurrence rather than long afterwards. It is better to write down what we do at the time it occurs rather than wait until the end of the day to reconstruct events.
Self-monitoring places responsibility for behavioral as- sessment on the person doing the monitoring (Belfiore & Hornyak, 1998). Self-monitored responses are consequences of behaviors; like other consequences, they affect future re- sponding. Self-recordings are immediate responses that serve to mediate the relationship between preceding behavior and longer-term consequences (Mace & West, 1986; Nelson & Hayes, 1981). Students who monitor their completion of as- signments provide themselves with immediate reinforcers that mediate the link between the work and distant conse- quences (e.g., teacher praise, high grades).
Self-instruction refers to discriminative stimuli that set the occasion for self-regulatory responses leading to reinforce- ment (Mace et al., 1989). One type of self-instruction in- volves arranging the environment to produce discriminative stimuli. Students who realize they need to review class notes the next day might write themselves a reminder before going to bed. The written reminder serves as a cue to review, which makes reinforcement (i.e., a good grade on a quiz) more likely.
|
