Research / Reflective Journal

CSIC 8101 Research and Community Informed Practice- Reflective Portfolio

My Inquiry: To find if learners would successfully engage to complete their tasks according to their self-regulated learning plan within ILE spaces. –Sudhir Kumar Duppati.

Our school Marlborough Boys College is a full BYOD from this year and with this new initiative my proposed plan is to implement Self-regulated learning for level 2 and 3 Design students in a space improvised to feature Innovative Learning Environment. The school has prioritized and identified learner centered education with a shift in pedagogy to suit the ILE.

My Community groups:

1.   A learner centered approach requires student agency. The design students are my first and foremost significant community group in my inquiry. These students will be equipped to reflect, evaluate and feed into designing their own learning program.

2.   The second group is the staff professional development learning groups at my school, which meets and shares ideas as a Toha every Wednesday. We aspire to collaborate and share ideas suitable for a pedagogy shift. This will not only validate the authenticity of their feedback in my inquiry but will establish an active participation and engagement with the learning community.

3.   The learners whanau also forms as a third group as they participate in supporting the learners in their planning and implementation.  This will contribute in building a stronger partnership between the whanau and the school.

4.   The other most significant group is the Mindlab or online educational forums where learners regularly share and critique the plan. The feedback gives an opportunity to reflect upon the possible impact of my planning.

According to Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, (2015) each of these “Groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” collectively collaborate in contributing and developing a community based learning centered space at the school.  

I will be using the Spiral of Enquiry, Ministry of Education (2007)  (Appendix 1) as it resonates a collaborative approach in building a positive environment by involving learners, their whanau and communities (Timperely, Linda and Judy, 2014). This future focused inquiry provides opportunities to the teachers to collaborate in building a positive learning environment in which a shift in the pedagogy is essential to suit the ILE.   For the ILE space to be relevant to the learning context and the pedagogy, Timperley’s 7 principles of learning will be used in the process of inquiry (Appendix 2).

Scanning: The Self-regulated learning is new to these students but with BYOD, every student is accessible to their own time and space. The learners are planning their own timetabling to suit their individual needs based on their current experiences in the new space. The current timetable of 4 hours per week per subject enables them to plan independent or tutorial or group/collaborative learning. Learners have a 6 week program to design a promotional concept for a business. The number of students in my two classes is 30. The learners are well equipped with digital skills and they will be using Adobe graphic tools.  Their individual engagement with their plan based on the annual and term planning sheet (Appendix 3 and 4), which helps them to organize their plan and follow it. The classroom observations and student interviews as part of survey is to identify their prior knowledge and experiences. A thorough look into the learners’ ways of learning or success stories shared by other teachers can also be collected from the Kamar. An initial contact with the family can also be useful in sharing what is expected in the program.  These will help me in planning my own inquiry and support the learners in the identified contexts of their learning.

Focusing: My inquiry is to find if the self-regulated learners manage and be engaged to follow their independent plan for a successful completion of their assessment. What is identified from previous experiences at risk is the self-regulated learning in a group where every learner could be at a different level of learning stage. The social nature of learning students’ progress depends on cognitive, behavioral and emotional engagement.  According to D.Kostons et al.2012, “students do not apply and acquire self-regulation skills merely by engaging in self-regulated learning, but rather need additional training or instructional support such as prompts or tutoring.” Feedback from the community of learners is crucial to this inquiry as they inform my practice. Those students who are meta-cognitively, motivationally and behaviorally active participants in their own learning processes plan their acquisition process, define their objectives, organize information, continuously monitor and evaluate themselves.  Zimmerman (2000) said that self-regulation, “…refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals.” (p.14). it is also perceived as a multidimensional process whereby individuals attempt to exert control over their cognition, motivation, behavior, and environments. (Cleary, T.J., Callan, G.L., & Zimmerman, B. J. 2012).

Developing a hunch:  I see that the shift in pedagogy to suit the Self-regulated learning means in ILE spaces requires designing formative assessments methods to evaluate a student work in progress. Monitoring and giving a regular feedback and feedforward has proved to be helpful to the students in the past and hence this pedagogical tool can be useful in supporting the self-regulated learners. Zimmerman’s three phase cyclical process of thought and action model of self-regulation to take action in monitoring and evaluating student’s work will be applied in my inquiry. (Appendix 5). There is every chance of off task behavior or lack or engagement from the students and hence communication home with feedback/feedforward will be shared with the whanau to keep them informed about the learner’s progress. The common factor in any type of monitoring method is that they target self-regulation that has a clear beginning, middle and end. Winne and Perry (2000) label these approaches as event measures and is also familiarly known as Temporal Organization of Data.

The following are a few steps that I will use for this inquiry.

Step 1: Assess prior learning experiences via online student survey using Likert scale review.

Step2: plan a 6 week assessment.

Step3:  organize an online 365 group for the students and parents to interact and share ideas and experiences. Share course outline and instruction booklet.

Step4: goal-setting and student individual plan.

Step5: Implement the three phase cyclical process for assessment of self-regulated learning.

Step6: Assess learner’s blogs and their reflective journals.

Step7: Monitoring learners Self-Regulation by interviewing and reviewing the learners. (Survey)

Step8: Collect student voices/feedback. (Survey)

Step10: Evaluate learner’s outcome and my own attributes in the Self-regulation learning.

The three step temporal survey method will be used to gather quantity and quality data pertaining to student. Whanau responses about their progress at home will also be collected.  

For the Beginning phase a student survey will be conducted that adopts descriptive model to find what they think about Self-regulated learning and their preparedness. This could be either an interview or an online questionnaire (Appendix 6). The data collected will be analyzed to know if the learners are well equipped or need a few SRL sessions. 

The Middle phase in week 3 will be a Student/Whanau survey (Appendix 7 & 8) to assess the learners’ progress and to evaluate their engagement level through classroom observations (Appendix 9). This will be a qualitative analysis with an option to identify and support individual learner needs.

The third/end phase of survey will be to get a Student Feedback to evaluate the 6 week program to ensure and improve in the future. A longitudinal approach of data collection will be employed to rate a general success or failure of SRL (Appendix 10).

The above plan was discussed in our Faculty meeting, with the parents in a meeting and other Professional Learning groups. The majority of the teachers brought up similar doubts and questions to the table. They are as follows:

1.   Do the learners know their responsibility to follow their plan?

2.   What will happen if the students are off task, while distracting others?  

3.   How will you as a teacher know how they are progressing?

4.   Will the learners need training or sessions to learn about being self-regulated? How will the teacher do it?

5.   What if the learner is behind schedule and misses an opportunity to submit the task on time?

6.   Will the quantity of work load be compromised for a better quality?  

What was realized as a new Learning is that the motivational factor would make an impact for a successful self-regulated learning in the future ILE spaces. The motivational dimension that enhance performance and self-reflection include

Self-efficacy, which is considered as one of the fundamental motivational factors for self-regulation

(Bandura 1986; Schunk 2001; Zimmerman 1989, 1990). Students with high self-efficacy were found to be utilizing self-regulated learning skills more than those with low self-efficacy (Pintrich 1999; Wolters 1998). Goal orientations-  Research has shown that those students with learning goals use self-regulated learning skills more and show more task persistence than those students with performance goals, “who likely choose less challenging tasks where they could demonstrate competence even though they might not learn anything new” (Meece 1994: 29). Schiefele (1991: 311–312) points out that students with high interest and task value towards school subjects tend to have “deep level” rather than “surface level” learning, they try to relate material to prior knowledge, and spend much time and effort on learning tasks. Weiner (1979) lists the general attributions for failure as effort, ability, task difficulty, and luck and postulates that learning-oriented students more often see effort as an attribution for failure. 

Those students who rate those uncontrollable factors (luck, ability, and task difficulty) as their reasons for failure or success have no learning tendencies; hence spend less time on task completion and show less persistence. On the contrary, those students who attribute their failures to effort (the controllable factor) are willing to take responsibility of their own learning and tend to believe that it is “lack of effort”, not their inability that causes failure (Licht and Dweck 1984; Weiner 1979).

Students with high anxiety show less self-regulation and perseverance. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) add anxiety as an emotional component to the dimension of student motivation towards academic achievement.

Checking: The measures I will be taking will be,

·        Reminders will be given to them ahead of time apart from orienting them at the beginning of the year.

·        set up classroom behavioral management protocols in place for them to be responsible

·        regular one on one sessions will be provided offline/online or after the school tutorials will be arranged

·        Whanau will be consulted and necessary action will be taken to support and guide the learner to achieve it

·        Deep learning verses credit collection. Horizontal learning will be given significance than otherwise collecting any credits

Eventually, even if the learners are on a self-regulation mode, it is essential that the teacher monitors their progress and gives regular feedback while sharing their success with the whanau and the school staff. I will be adopt the inquiry prompt questions provided by the University of Canterbury (Appendix 11) to monitor and evaluate my own progress.

References:

Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., and Halbert, J. (2014, April). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education, Seminar Series Paper No. 234.

Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.

Retrieved from: http://www.thepositivepsychologypeople.com/a-positive-community-of-practice/

Kostons, Danny & van Gog, Tamara & Paas, Fred. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction - LEARN INSTR. 22. . 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.004.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: CA: Academic Press.

Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Education Research International, 2012.

Winne, Philip & E. Perry, Nancy. (2012). Measuring Self-Regulated Learning. Handbook of Self-regulation. . 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of educational psychology, 81(3), 329-339.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 83-110). Springer New York.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Princeton-Hall.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International journal of educational research, 31(6), 459-470.

Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students' regulation of motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 90(2), 224.

Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.

Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction of children's achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 628.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of educational psychology, 71(1), 3.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33.

Appendix:

	1.

 

2.  7 Principles of Leaning: (Source: Dumont et al, 2010)

1.    Learners at the center

2.    Social nature of learning

3.    Emotions as integral to learning

4.    Recognizing individual differences

5.    Stretching all students

6.    Assessment for learning

7.    Building horizontal connections

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

  

8.

9.   Classroom observation. (Descriptive)

Stu.Name		None	Partial	Some	Full	other
	Engagement with Task
	Responsible
	Participating in discussions/Involved
	Independent learning
	Distracted
	Reflection/Blog
	Following instructions
	Self-Motivated
	Working as per SRL plan

10.

11.