Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Production, Mediational, and Continued-Use Deficiencies
- Social Constructivist Theory
- Construction of Theories
- Theoretical Formulations 67
- Subprocesses of Self-Regulated Learning
- Cyclical Nature of Self-Regulation
- Identification of Self-Regulatory Processes
- TABLE 4.3 Categories of Self-Regulated Learning Processes
- TABLE 4.2 Key Processes During Phases of Self-Regulation
Theoretical Formulations 65 conditioning results do not completely generalize to humans; human conditioning often occurs quickly with one or a few pairings of conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus, in contrast to the multiple pairings required with animals. Pavlov believed that conditioning differences between humans and animals were due to the human capacity for language and thought. Stimuli may not produce conditioning automatically; people interpret stimuli in light of their prior experiences. Although Pavlov did not conduct research on the second signal system, subsequent investigations have validated his beliefs that human conditioning is complex and that language plays a mediational role. Luria (1961) focused on the child’s transition from the first to the second signal system. Luria postulated three stages in the development of verbal control of motor behavior. Ini- tially, the speech of others directed the child’s behavior (ages 1.5–2.5). During the second stage (ages 3–4), the child’s overt verbalizations initiated motor behaviors but did not necessarily inhibit them. In the third stage, the child’s private speech became capable of initiating, directing, and inhibiting motor behaviors (ages 4.5–5.5). Luria believed this private, self-regulatory speech directed behavior through neurophys- iological mechanisms. The mediational and self-directing role of the second signal system is embodied in Vygotsky’s theory (discussed later). Production, Mediational, and Continued-Use Deficiencies Many investigations have attempted to determine what fac- tors determine why children do not use private speech when doing so would be desirable. A distinction is drawn between production and mediational deficiencies in spontaneous use of private speech (Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966). A production deficiency is a failure to generate task-relevant verbalizations (e.g., rules, strategies, information to be re- membered) when they could improve performance. A media-
produced, but they do not affect subsequent behaviors (Fuson, 1979). Young children produce verbalizations that do not neces- sarily mediate performance. Children eventually develop the ability to verbalize statements that mediate performance, but they may not produce relevant verbalizations at the appropri- ate times. With development, children learn to verbalize when it might benefit their performances. This developmen- tal model fits better in situations calling for simple types of verbal self-regulation (e.g., rote rehearsal) than it does when complex verbalizations are required. For the latter, produc- tion and mediational deficiencies may coexist and may not follow a simple progression (Fuson, 1979). Ample research demonstrates that after children are trained to produce verbalizations to aid performance, they often dis- continue use of private speech when no longer required to ver- balize (Schunk, 1982b). A continued-use deficiency arises when students have an inadequate understanding of the strat- egy, as they might when they receive insufficient instruction and practice using the strategy (Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979). Teachers can remedy this problem by providing re- peated instruction and practice with spaced review sessions. A
ciate the strategy with the training context and do not under- stand how to transfer it to other tasks. Use of multiple tasks during training helps students understand uses of the strategy. Strategies often must be modified to apply to different tasks. When slight modifications prove troublesome, students bene- fit from explicit training on strategy modification. Continued-use deficiencies can also occur when learners do not understand that use of private speech benefits their performances. They might believe that verbal self-regulation is useful, but that it is not as important for success as such factors as personal effort or time available (Fabricius & Hagen, 1984). To promote maintenance of verbal self- regulators, researchers suggest providing learners with strat- egy value information, or information that links strategy use with improved performance (Baker & Brown, 1984; Paris et al., 1983; Schunk & Rice, 1987). Strategy value can be conveyed by instructing students to use the strategy because it will help them perform better, in- forming them that strategy use benefited other students, and providing feedback linking strategy use with progress in skill acquisition (Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979). Research shows that strategy value information enhances performance, contin- ued strategy use, and strategy transfer to other tasks (Lodico, Ghatala, Levin, Pressley, & Bell, 1983; Paris, Newman, & McVey, 1982). Strategy value information also raises self-efficacy, which promotes performance through increased effort and persis- tence (Schunk & Rice, 1987). Students who benefit most from strategy training are those who work at tasks nonsys- tematically and who doubt their academic capabilities (Licht & Kistner, 1986). Strategy value information implicitly con- veys to students that they are capable of learning and suc- cessfully applying the strategy, which engenders a sense of control over learning outcomes and enhances self-efficacy for skill improvement. Social Constructivist Theory Social constructivist theory of self-regulation is grounded in theories of cognitive development. These developmental
66 Self-Regulation and Learning theories have certain core assumptions (Paris & Byrnes, 1989). Developmental theories stress the notion that people are in- trinsically motivated to learn. From birth onward, people are motivated to actively explore, understand, and control their environments. Understanding transcends the literal informa- tion acquired. People impose meaning on their perceptions and form beliefs according to their prior experiences. Mental representations change with development. Infants and toddlers represent their worlds in terms of action and sights. With development, learners use verbal codes (e.g., lan- guage, mathematical notation) to represent what they know. There are progressive refinements in levels of understand- ing. The process of reconciling what one knows and what one encounters never ends. Progressive refinements are stimu- lated by internal reorganizations and reflections, as well as by physical experiences, social guidance, and exposure to new information. Development places limits on learning. Readiness for learn- ing includes maturation and prior experiences. Learning pro- ceeds best when learners have the potential to learn and are exposed to information commensurate with their readiness. Finally, reflection and reconstruction stimulate learning. Although formal teaching methods can produce learning, the primary motivation behind learning comes from within and involves an intrinsic need to reexamine one’s knowledge and behaviors. Learners construct theories about what they are able to do and why.
Social constructivists view self-regulation as the process of acquiring beliefs and theories about their abilities and com- petencies, the structure and difficulty of learning tasks, and the way to regulate effort and strategy use to accomplish goals (Paris & Byrnes, 1989). These theories and beliefs are constrained by development and change as a consequence of development and experience. For example, research shows that children’s earliest attri-
but that with development a distinct conception of ability emerges (Nicholls, 1978). After this differentiation occurs, children realize that performance may not match abilities and that other factors (e.g., effort, help from others) influence per- formance. Children’s theories about the causes of academic outcomes reflect this developmental progression. In like fashion, researchers have shown how children con- struct theories about the use and value of strategies. Children are taught methods to use on different tasks and construct their own versions about what works best for them. Strategy information includes the strategy’s goals, the tasks for which it is appropriate, how it improves performance, and how much effort it requires to use (Borkowski, Johnston, & Reid, 1987). Although strategies typically are task specific, there are common elements across different strategies such as goal setting and evaluation of progress (Pressley et al., 1990). In the course of theory construction it often happens that learners are erroneous because not all instances are provided as examples and children must often improvise solutions. In mathematics, for example, erroneous strategies that nonethe- less lead to solutions (albeit inaccurate) are known as buggy algorithms (Brown & Burton, 1978). When learning subtrac- tion, children may acquire the belief that column by column, they take the smaller number away from the larger number regardless of whether that means they subtract from top to bottom or from bottom to top. This buggy algorithm gener- ates solutions and can lead to a false sense of perceived competence for subtraction, which yields gross mismatches between what children believe they can do and their actual successes.
The Russian psychologist Vygotsky’s work is relevant to the social constructivist tradition. Vygotsky emphasized the role that language plays in self-regulation. Vygotsky (1962) believed that private speech helped to develop thought by organizing behavior. Children employed private speech to un- derstand situations and surmount difficulties. Private speech occurred in conjunction with children’s interactions in the so- cial environment. As children’s language facility developed, words spoken by others acquired meaning independent of their phonological and syntactical qualities. Children internalized word meanings and used them to direct their behaviors. Vygotsky hypothesized that private speech followed a curvilinear developmental pattern: Overt verbalization (thinking aloud) increased until age 6 or 7, after which it de- clined and became primarily covert (internal) by ages 8–10. However, overt verbalization could occur at any age when people encountered problems or difficulties. Research shows that although the amount of private speech decreases from about ages 4 or 5 to 8, the proportion of private speech that is self-regulating increases with age (Fuson, 1979). In many research investigations, the actual amount of private speech is small, and many children do not verbalize at all. Thus, the developmental pattern of private speech seems more com- plex than the pattern originally hypothesized by Vygotsky. Another Vygotskiian concept is the zone of proximal devel- opment, or the amount of learning possible by a student given the proper instructional conditions. Tasks that a student cannot Theoretical Formulations 67 do alone but can with some assistance fall into the zone. As teachers or peers provide scaffolding to assist in the process, learners are increasingly able to operate independently. Even- tually the zone is changed to reflect new, higher-order learning.
In the social cognitive theoretical framework, self-regulation is construed as situationally specific—that is, learners are not expected to engage in self-regulation equally in all domains. Although some self-regulatory processes (e.g., goal setting) may generalize across settings, learners must understand how to adapt processes to specific domains and must feel ef- ficacious about doing so. This situational specificity is cap- tured in Zimmerman’s (1994, 1998) conceptual framework comprising six areas in which one can use self-regulatory processes: motives, methods, time, outcomes, physical envi- ronment, and social environment. Self-regulation is possible to the extent that learners have some choice in one or more of these areas. When all aspects of a task are predetermined, students may learn, but the source of control is external (i.e., teachers, parents, computers). Reciprocal Interactions According to Bandura (1986), human functioning involves reciprocal interactions between behaviors, environmental variables, and cognitions and other personal factors (Fig- ure 4.1). This reciprocity is exemplified with an important construct in Bandura’s theory: perceived self-efficacy, or be- liefs about one’s capabilities to learn or perform behaviors at designated levels (Bandura, 1997). Research shows that stu- dents’ self-efficacy beliefs influence such actions as choice of tasks, persistence, effort, and achievement (Schunk, 1995). In turn, students’ behaviors modify their efficacy beliefs. For ex- ample, as students work on tasks they note their progress to- ward their learning goals (e.g., completing sections of a term paper). Progress indicators convey to students that they are capable of performing well, which enhances self-efficacy for continued learning. The interaction between self-efficacy and environmental factors has been demonstrated in research on students with learning disabilities, many of whom hold low self-efficacy for performing well (Licht & Kistner, 1986). Individuals in students’ social environments may react to them based on at- tributes typically associated with them rather than based on what students actually do. Teachers may judge such students as less capable than average learners and hold lower acade- mic expectations for them, even in content areas in which stu- dents with learning disabilities are performing adequately (Bryan & Bryan, 1983). In turn, teacher feedback can affect self-efficacy. Persuasive statements (e.g., I know that you can do this) can raise self-efficacy. Students’ behaviors and classroom environments influ- ence one another. Consider a typical instructional sequence in which the teacher presents information and asks students to direct their attention to an overhead. Environmental influence on behavior occurs when students turn their heads without much conscious deliberation. Students’ behaviors often alter the instructional environment. If the teacher asks questions and students give incorrect answers, the teacher may reteach some points rather than continue the lesson. Subprocesses of Self-Regulated Learning Self-regulation has been conceptualized as involving three key subprocesses: self-observation, self-judgment, and self- reaction (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986; Karoly, 1982). These subprocesses are not mutually exclusive; rather, they interact. While observing aspects of one’s behavior, one may judge them against standards and react positively or negatively. One’s evaluations and reactions set the stage for additional observations of the same behavioral aspects or others. These subprocesses also do not operate independently of the learning environment; environmental factors can assist the development of self-regulation. We discuss only the latter two subprocesses because self-observation is substantially similar to self-monitoring (described earlier). Self-Judgment Self-judgment refers to comparing present performance with one’s goal. The belief that one is making goal progress en- hances self-efficacy and sustains motivation. Students who find a task to be easy may think that they set their goal too low and may set it higher the next time. Furthermore, knowing that similar others performed a task can promote self-efficacy and motivation; students are apt to believe that if others can suc- ceed, they can as well (Schunk, 1987). Students who believe they have not made acceptable progress will not become Figure 4.1 Reciprocal interactions in human functioning. Personal Variables Environmental Variables Behaviors
68 Self-Regulation and Learning discouraged if they feel efficacious about succeeding and believe that a different strategy will produce better results.
Self-reactions to goal progress exert motivational effects (Bandura, 1986). Students who judge goal progress as ac- ceptable and who anticipate satisfaction from goal accom- plishment will feel efficacious about continuing to improve and motivated to complete the task. Negative evaluations will not necessarily decrease motivation if students believe they are capable of improving, such as by working harder. Moti- vation will not increase if students believe they lack the abil- ity to succeed or to improve. Instructions to people to respond evaluatively to their perfor- mances can affect motivation. People who believe they can per- form better persist longer and work harder (Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986). Evaluations are not intimately tied to level of perfor- mance. Some students are content with a B in a course, whereas others want only an A. Assuming that people believe they are capable of improving, higher goals lead to greater effort and persistence than do lower goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). Cyclical Nature of Self-Regulation The interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors during self-regulation is a cyclical process because these factors typically change during learning and must be monitored (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Zimmerman, 1994). Such monitoring leads to changes in an individual’s strategies, cognitions, affects, and behaviors. This cyclical nature is captured in Zimmerman’s (1998) three-phase self-regulation model (Table 4.2). The fore-
processes that set the stage for action. The performance (volitional) control phase involves processes that occur dur- ing learning and affect attention and action. During the self- reflection phase—which occurs after performance—people respond to their efforts. Table 4.2 shows that various self-regulatory processes come into play during the different phases. Social cognitive theorists postulate that students enter learning situations with goals and varying degrees of self-efficacy for attaining these goals. During performance control, they implement learning strategies that affect motivation and learning. During periods of self-reflection, learners engage in self-evaluation.
This section reviews some key areas of research on self- regulation. A comprehensive review is beyond the scope of this chapter; readers should consult other sources (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998). The research in this section focuses on self-regulation in learning settings. We begin by reviewing research that sought to identify self-regulatory processes; then we discuss research exploring the relation of processes to one another and to achievement outcomes. We conclude by describing an intervention project.
A number of researchers have sought to identify the types of self-regulatory processes that students use while engaged in academic tasks. Many of these studies also have determined whether the use of processes varies as a function of individ- ual difference variables. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) developed a struc- tured interview in which students were presented with eight different learning contexts (e.g., writing a short paper, taking a test, completing a homework assignment). For each, they were asked to state the methods they would use. Fourteen cat- egories of self-regulated learning processes were identified (Table 4.3).
Category
Example Self-evaluating. Checking work to ensure it is correct. Organizing and transforming. Making an outline before writing. Goal-setting and planning. Start studying 2 weeks before a test. Seeking information. Do library research before writing a paper.
Keeping records and Keep a list of words missed. monitoring. Environmental structuring. Isolate oneself from distractions. Self-consequating. Reward oneself after a high test score. Rehearsing and memorizing. Write down formulas until they are learned.
Seeking peer assistance. Ask a friend how to do an assignment. Seeking teacher assistance. Ask the teacher to reexplain a concept. Seeking adult assistance. Ask a parent to check homework. Reviewing tests. Determine correct answers on items missed.
Reviewing notes. Study notes prior to a test. Reviewing texts. Study text prior to a test. TABLE 4.2 Key Processes During Phases of Self-Regulation Forethought Performance Control Self-Reflection Goal setting. Social comparisons. Progress feedback and self-evaluation. Social modeling. Attributional feedback. Self-monitoring. Strategy instruction Reward contingencies. and self-verbalization. |
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling