slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Self Regulated Learning ( S.R.L ) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Self Regulated Learning ( S.R.L )

Self Regulated Learning ( S.R.L )

134 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Self Regulated Learning ( S.R.L )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Self Regulated Learning (S.R.L) Research methodology and results. Dr. Shoshi Reiter 1 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  2. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  3. Why change? Schools vision is to preparer students for their best performance at present and in future. 3 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  4. Why change? Reality is changing … • Overload and changes in information • Rapid evolving, ubiquitous technology (ICT). • Rapid Changes in demands of working places. • Increasingly less clear future needs. All that and more presents’… 4 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  5. Why change? A challenge for education to prepare student for performance in changing dynamic world. teaching for skills – be relevant 5 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  6. Why change? • What are the demands from our students in changing dynamic world? • Need to cope with knowledge explosion • Need to acquire and practice new skills • Need to adjust behavior. 6 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  7. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  8. … that…2011 – not much change in teaching and learning style. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  9. What to change? What is the constrain? What stops the flow of students learning??? What is the teacher doing during lesson? Most teachers are working hard most of the time. What are the students doing? 9 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  10. What to change?What is the problem? • Teachers are supposed meet national standards and in the same time everystudents’need. • Can one teacher do that during lessons? Teachers attention is the constrain!!!! 10 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  11. Can we elevate the teaching resource in class? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! Focus on students' performance. It is common knowledge that learning is improved by teaching. SRL with TOC tools is focused on student's thinking and executive behavior. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  12. What to change to? • Ifwe aim at “no child is left behind” • Then we have to promote every students’ knowledge of skills for LLL 12 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  13. What to change to? SRL with TOC Self Regulated Learning A set of processes by which the student is raising his motivation, actions and self-monitoring to meet learning goals. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  14. From the need to research… If the vision is to preparer students for LLL. And if SRL with TOC tools gives them what is needed.. What happens when students got the opportunity ??? 14 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  15. Aim of research Investigating 9th graders' yearlong SRL related to outcomes - achievement in genetics. “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”. AlbertEinstein. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  16. Research questions (1) Changes over time in SRL of experimental group as compared with that of control students, learning in the traditional mode? (2) What are the changes over time in experimental group students' achievement regarding knowledge of genetics as compared with control group students? (4) What correlations emerged between experimental group students' self-reported and enacted SRL? (5) What correlations emerged between SRL and achievement? Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  17. What have we done?What was special? • A long term yearly design • An authentic context of a regular junior-high school • Heterogeneous classrooms • Students learning independently • The national curriculum. Holistic study aimed at a deeper view of a complex dynamic phenomenon of SRL using TOC tools. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  18. Instruments.Data were collected via: LASSI questionnaire - self-reported SRL (Learning And Study Strategies Inventory, Weinstein,(1996(alpha=.91). Yearly, Weekly and Post-Exam reports measured enacted SRL Science knowledge tests measured students' knowledge of genetics. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  19. How did we start our journey?First step… Utopia - up to the sky “if you can dream it you can do it” Disney Creating motivation thorough the AT tool : Students were asked to verbalize their AT in life. Why not? Because…. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  20. The SRL spiral • Preparation phase – setting the goal planning • Enacting phase- Task on hand,performing,. • Monitoring phase: progress toward the goal. 20 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  21. How? What have we done? Students got a systematic SRL+TOC course acquire TOC tools implemented in SRL process 21 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  22. SRL Activity training report Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  23. How? What have we done? • Students got the early syllabus. • Students got autonomy in choosing learning style. • Teacher was coaching students 23 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  24. Yearly report - Progress along curriculum Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  25. weekly report -weekly plan: suggested, enacted & evaluation Date_______ My weekly learning goal is__________________________________ Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  26. Planning stage: Colleting data (what? why?) Architecting: Filtering- choose relevant data, Synchronizing- organize & schedule 26 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  27. weekly report -weekly plan: suggested, enacted & evaluation Date_______ My weekly learning goal is__________________________________ Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  28. Enacting phase:performing Task on hand: The actual actions. Follow the plan or change it 28 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  29. weekly report - weekly plan: suggested, enacted & evaluation Students were asked to evaluate • The plan: how sure are you that the plan serves the goal? (not sure)1, 2, 3 ,4, 5 (very sure) (necessary assumption) • Self-efficacy: how sure are you that you will be able to enact the plan? (not sure)1, 2, 3 ,4, 5 (very sure) • How well did the enacted plan match the suggested one (not at all)1, 2, 3 ,4, 5 (very much) Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  30. weekly report -weekly plan: evaluation Gaps between suggested vs. enacted plan: • Was there a gap? Yes/no • The gap was in: time/order of actions/kind of actions • Did I met my weekly goal? Yes/no • Was the goal well articulated? Yes/no Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  31. I reach/don’t reach the goal I made / didn’t progress forward toward the goal I _________ My actionswere I________________ My weekly goal is _______________ What to change/keep? What do I have to do in order to achieve my weekly goal?Homework? ______________________________________________________ Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  32. Yearly report - Progress along curriculum Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  33. Monitoring phase • Self judgment – Control. • Monitoring progress? went well/ wrong? • Self instructions. • If goal was achieved, what to keep. • Start the cycle again 33 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  34. SRL spiral & content construction • SRL involves thinking and rethinking • Student is checking the process as well as the outcomes of learning SRL process Content 34 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  35. Knowledge constructionHelix An helix of on going improvement -connections between doing and outcomes. Changes in body of knowledge are recognized to activate proper strategy. 35 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  36. Expected outcomes of intervention program. 36 Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  37. SRL -beginning of year SRL - end of year Results Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  38. Learning Activities • The students who managed their knowledge were involved by choice in different activities: Reading, Answering question, Concept maps, Cause-effect chart, Main ideas, Discussions. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  39. Time management. According to students report they were engaged in learning (hands on task) 90% of lesson time. Monitoring effectiveness of time management raised awareness to that invisible resource. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  40. Pace of learning progress during year • Most students did not stick to teaches plan. Each student developed own pace. • Pace of progress isn’t necessarily an indication of quality of the body of knowledge. • Personalized learning strategy is contributes to knowledge construction Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  41. Changes in SRL Students' enacted SRL Reports indicated that students of experiment group: (a) enacted a spiral regulation process (b) had difficulties to phrase a goal (c) selected mostly familiar activities (d) identified explicit gaps but not implicit or indirectly visible gaps, (e.g., gaps in knowledge). All these hindered monitoring. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  42. Knowledge construction of Genetics. • Students of experiment group scored higher that the control group. • Findings reflect the impact of active involvement in learning on achievement. • Student self analyze of test strategy and teacher-test corrections, promotes awareness and ability to monitor learning. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  43. Pearson Correlations Between Self-Reported SRL and Achievement • Pretest correlation in both groups was insg. • At CG-T low interaction between academic achievement and self-testimony SRL, In posttest. • At EG-SRL increased interaction over time as students’ experiences with SRL Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  44. Pearson Correlations Between Self-Reported and Enacted SRL • A sig. positive correlation emerged at the end of the year, between self-reported (Lassi) and enacted SRL (protocols) • Once students practice SRL, they improve self-awareness as users of learning strategies. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  45. Enacted SRL-Knowledge Construction Reciprocal Influences in EG-SRL • An empirical path diagram summarizing nexus of relationships among science grades and SRL levels. • The correlation between academic achievement and enacted SRL was stronger and more sig. than with self-reported SRL. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  46. Conclusions • Given the opportunity, every student, regardless to starting point can regulate learning and improve achievements. • A shift from learning in a teacher-controlled traditional environment to learning in student-controlled environment, required a deep transformation of learning conceptions. • Independent SRL increased students' active involvement. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  47. Conclusions • Students' achievement in science increased sig. over the year at all levels measured • A long-term students' practice enabled them improve performance, and to "recover" from decreased motivation or self-efficacy. • It enabled researchers a deeper understanding of this dynamic phenomenon- what to keep and what to change in training. Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  48. Conclusions • Experiences in SRL and achievement are interacting. • Schools should provide students opportunities for experiencing independent SRL and its components should be explicitly and intentionally taught and trained on. • Teachers should get a systematic training to become a mentor for developing self-regulated learners Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  49. Outcomes for Students: Testimonial after experiencing SRL during a year "That learning style helps me understand materials better. I fell that we are trusted…. I enjoy more coming to school. I am independent and get to decide about my pace. My grades got higher. Every student should have the opportunity to experience that". Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.

  50. Outcomes: Students' testimonial "That method is very beneficial for learning. It helped me being responsible and organized. That will help me even in university. When to ask teacher for help and even if I have to stay a while after lesson. I understood how to learn and even liked it" (Dana). Dr. Reiter,2011, SRL T.P.