10 SES 08 A, Professional Learning and Leadership
Being able to strategically regulate one owns learning is a vital and increasingly important 21st century skill (Järvelä, Kirschner, Panadero, Malmber, Phielix, Jaspers, Koivuniemi & Järvenoja, 2014). Self- regulated learning (SRL) can be seen as “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453). SRL is not only a desirable outcome of teacher education, but these conceptions and skills are also necessary in order for student teachers’ study success and learning during teacher education. When studying, student teachers need to be able to identify their learning needs and to plan, monitor and evaluate their progress on their individual learning (Endedijk, 2010). The quality of learning is dependent on the ability of the student teacher to manage his or her own learning and to learn to reflect on and control his or her own learning processes (Niemi, 2002). By taking an active role in their own learning, the students can better understand and value their own SRL processes, and as future teachers, they will thus probably be more likely to support pupils learning and foster SRL skills (Heikkilä, Lonka, Nieminen & Niemivirta, 2012). A central question is how we can create teacher education programs that are effective in enabling teachers to acquire such skills.
There are several models of SRL grounded in a social- cognitive theory (Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2014). This paper is based on Zimmerman’s model, who probably is the most well- known among the models (Panadero, 2017). According to Zimmerman et.al (1996), the development of self- regulatory skill is a life-long pursuit for all of us. Research shows that students’ personal talent is not so important as their methods and practice, and just about anyone can develop it (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman, Bonner & Kovach, 1996). However, if students are not given explicit instructions about skills related to effective SRL, they will not develop forms of SRL on their own (Winne, 1996). Developing one’s action toward self- regulative learning is a long and demanding process and not many higher education students get through it alone (Niemi et.al., 2003). However research suggests that SRL processes can be learned from instruction and modeling (Zimmerman, 2002) and in this way teachers and teacher educators are considered key factors in promoting active learning (Niemi, 2002). Niemi et.al. (2003) argue that tutoring towards self- regulation is highly needed, and that there is too little guidance for study skills and learning strategies in higher education. At present, it is unclear how to train effective SRL in higher education (Bruijn-Smolders, Timmers, Gawke, Schoonman & Born, 2016).
In this paper, we explore teacher students’ adoption and development of SRL skills. We report findings from a study of teacher students in Norway, guided by the following research question: What is the content and priorities when teacher students reflect upon mini-lectures about self-regulated learning?
To gain insights into teacher students’ adoption and development of SRL skills, we have studied student teachers attending a course at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU. The course was held in 2015 and 170 students attended the course. All students were invited to attend mini- lectures that were hold 30 minutes before and 15 minutes after course-lectures. The aim of the mini- lectures was to develop students’ self-regulated learning skills. The topics in the mini-lectures were goal- orientation, concentration, self-efficacy, metacognition, self-regulated learning, learning, self-regulated learning in groups and motivational regulation. The topics were based on a previous meta-study of SRL (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). The learning environment was embedded to the course, but not a part of the curriculum. At the end of the semester we carried out semi-structured interviews with nine participants. The interviews were based on themes derived from the mini lectures and enabled us to elaborate and clarify multiple aspects of how the participants experienced and reflected upon their participation. We collaborated closely in planning the interviews. The interviews lasted up to 40 minutes and were recorded and thoroughly transcribed. The analysis of the data material has been inspired by Grounded Theory. Following this, the concepts that have been developed during the analysis have been derived from the data material and were not chosen prior to beginning the research (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The data material was analysed by means of the constant comparison approach, a process that involves breaking down data into manageable pieces, where each piece is compared for similarities and differences. The analysis process followed a procedure where the two collaborating researchers studied the transcribed interviews to ascertain, differentiate and understand the meaning of the content in each interview. The analysis involved the search for similarity in content and development of analytical categories that described the focus and primary concerns in each of the interviews. This involved constant “critical and sustained discussions” (Rossman & Rallis, 2003) for mutual construction of meaning between the co-researchers in the developing categories.
The constant comparative analysis revealed that “Awareness” was a concept that was present in many parts of the participants’ reflections upon the mini-lectures and as such “Awareness” serves as a core category. The core category is described through three major categories. The first category, awareness of SRL processes is needed (1), captures that the mini lectures gave an awareness of SRL processes that participants had missed in previous education. The second category, awareness of SRL processes makes changes in approaches to learning (2), describes changes in participants’ approaches to learning after participating in the mini-lectures. The participants also experienced that awareness of SRL processes is vital for their future work as teachers. This is captured in the third category, awareness of SRL processes is essential for future teaching practice (3). First and foremost, the findings indicate that when teacher students are given explicit instructions about skills related to effective SRL, they will become more aware of their own learning processes and make changes in their approaches to learning. The findings also indicate that this awareness make teacher students reflect upon the importance of creating learning environments in their future teaching practice that support their pupils learning and foster SRL skills. The knowledge from this study may be a relevant contribution when it comes to designing teacher education programs that encourages the development of SRL skills. In this way, our contribution can make a stronger quality of teacher education.
Bruijn-Smolders, Timmers, C.F, Gawke J.C.L, Schoonman, W. & Born, M.Ph. (2016). Effective self-regulatory processes in higher education: research findings and future directions. A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 139–158. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 4th edition. Sage. Endedijk,M.D (2010). Student teachers’ self-regulated learning. Utrecht University Respisitory. Heikkilä,A., Lonka, K., Nieminen, J. & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Relations between teacher students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being, and study success. Higher Education, 64(4), 455-473. Springer Link. Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P.A., Panadero, E. et.al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technological Research and Development, 63(1), 125-142. Niemi,H. (2002). Active learning–a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763-780. Niemi,H., Nevgi,A. & Virtanen,P. (2003). Towards Self-regulation in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media, 28(1), 49-71. Panadero, E. & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Annals of Psychology, 30(2), 450-462. Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning. Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Front.Psychol. 8:422. Pintrich,P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. USA: Academic Press. Rossman, G.B & Rallis, S.F., (2003). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage. Schunk, D.H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Self-regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-reflective Practice. Guilford Press. Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. Virtanen, P. & Nevgi, A. (2010). Diciplinary and gender differences among higher education students in self-regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology. An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 30(3), 323-347. Weinstein, C.E, Husman, J. & Dierking, D.R. (2000). Self-Regulation Interventions with a Focus on Learning Strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P.R., Pintrich, & M. Seidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation (p.727-747). Elsevier. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327–353. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Psychology in the classroom: A series on applied educational psychology. Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.