Self-regulation and Learning:Gifted Pedagogy, Classroom Environments, and Students<br />Angela M. Housand<br />University ...
angelahousand.com<br />
5619 Standardized Comprehension<br />
12,635 Oral Reading Fluency<br />
10,223 Likert Scale<br />
When Gifted Pedagogy…<br />…Meets Regular Classrooms<br />
Gifted education is the petri dish for general education programs.<br />(Gallagher)<br />
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented<br />www.gifted.uconn.edu<br />
SchoolwideEnrichmentModelReading<br />
The Enrichment Triad Model<br />Type II<br />Group Training Activities<br />Type I<br />General Exploratory Activities<br ...
SEM-R<br />An enrichment-based reading program <br />Designed to increase:<br />Reading achievement for all students<br />...
Components of the SEM-R Framework<br />Increasing degree of student selection<br />(Joyful Reading – p. 9) <br />
Design<br />Experimental<br />Cluster-randomized assignment to groups<br />Pre/Post measures used<br />
Sample: Year 1 <br />Two Title I Schools<br />Grades 3-6<br />J = 14<br />n= 229<br />ntreatment = 110<br />ncontrol = 112...
Methodology:Pre/Post  Measures<br />
Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention reading comprehension <br />Statistically significant difference among treatment le...
Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention reading fluency <br />Statistically significant difference among treatment levels<b...
Results: HLM<br />Used pre-assessments as covariates<br />Pre-fluency for fluency<br />Pre-comprehension for comprehension...
Sample: Year 2 <br />Two Schools – Suburban and Urban<br />Grades 3-5<br />J = 31<br />n= 558<br />ntreatment = 313<br />n...
Methodology:Pre/Post  Measures<br />
Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention reading comprehension <br />Statistically significant difference among treatment le...
Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention readingfluency<br />Statistically significant difference among treatment levels<br ...
Results: HLM<br />Used pre-assessments as covariates<br />Pre-fluency for fluency<br />Pre-comprehension for comprehension...
Sample: Year 3 <br />Five Schools – Suburban and Urban<br />Grades 3-5<br />J = 47<br />n= 1057<br />ntreatment = 608<br /...
Results<br />No statistically significant differences found between treatment and control<br />SEM-R replaced one hour of ...
Self-Regulation and SEM-R<br />Choice in activities<br />Opportunity for help seeking<br />Student participation in evalua...
Quantitative Procedures<br />Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)<br />Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)<br />Struc...
Sample Year 4 <br />Grades 2-5(n= 1252; J = 71)Demographics: Percentages by School<br />
Methodology: Pre-Measures<br />
Methodology: Post Measures<br />
Methodology: Post Measures<br />
Methodology:  Missing Data<br />Attrition (n = 115)<br />Pattern of missingness assessed in NORM<br />Remaining missingnes...
240 Observations Conducted<br />Range = 1 to 8 per classroom<br />Over the course of 1 Academic Year<br />Methodology: Obs...
Research Question 1<br />What are the effects of individual factors on individual self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy u...
Results: Random Effects<br />Significant between class variation remained to be explained:<br />		(00 = .040, 269 = 162....
Results: Random Coefficients<br />Female<br />not significant predictor<br />Pre-Achievement<br />		(20 = .045, t69  = 1....
Results: Random Coefficients<br />Within class variability reduced by 44.1%<br />Between class variability reduced by 67.5...
Results: Contextual<br />Grade (i.e. being in grade 2,4,or 5) not a significant predictor of SRL strategy use<br />7.7% of...
Results: Contextual<br />Pre-achievement no longer significant predictor of SRL strategy use.<br />
Implications: Achievement<br /><ul><li>Relationship between achievement scores and SRL strategy use corroborates previous ...
Which came first?</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Gender<br /><ul><li>Influence from gender on SRL strategy use contradict...
Are girls really more self-regulated than boys?</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Grade<br /><ul><li>Influence same across g...
Do the real changes occur at major transitions (e.g. primary to secondary)?</li></li></ul><li>Research Question 2<br />How...
Results: Variance Explained<br />44.9% of between class variance is explained by individual factors and teacher observatio...
Follow-up Question<br />After controlling for individual factors, how much between class variance in SRL strategy use is e...
Results<br />After controlling for individual factors, no effect from treatment.<br />Treatment did not significantly infl...
Implications: Treatment<br /><ul><li>No effect from treatment...
Multiple previous studies suggest that environmental conditions, like those provided in the SEM-R, support the development...
Broad application of pedagogy?
More influence from teacher style and expertise?
Implementation integrity?
Length of implementation?
Instrumentation?</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Treatment<br /><ul><li>We know that students are more able to regulate th...
Instrumentation?
Self-report and teacher report measures?</li></ul>Growth not apparent?<br />
Research Question 3<br />Are there differences between SEM-R treatment and control classrooms on observable environmental ...
Results: Caution<br />Time as a covariate<br />Wilkes Lambda used for MANOVA tests<br />Inter-Rater reliability (r = .70) ...
Results: Environment<br />All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions<br />Average of 4 dimensions of Environmental Influ...
Results: Observed Behaviors<br />All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions<br />Average of 4 dimensions of Observed Beh...
Results: No Difference<br />Environmental<br />Help Seeking<br />Observed Student Behaviors<br />Solicit Information<br />...
Implications<br /><ul><li>More reliable observation instrument should be developed.</li></li></ul><li>Implications<br /><u...
Limitations: Instrumentation<br />DV based on self-report<br />Reliability of self-report scales based on use with older s...
Limitations: Treatment Fidelity<br />Teachers reverting to former classroom practices<br />Whole class novel studies<br />...
255 Teachers<br />
959 Classroom Observations<br />
7010 Students<br />
When the Classroom Environment<br />Influences Student Performance<br />
SEM-R Classroom<br />Increasing enjoyment through interest and choice<br />Increasing focus in reading gradually over time...
SEM-R Classroom<br />Ongoing formative assessment<br />Enabling responsiveness to student needs<br />Embedded summative as...
Components of the SEM-R Framework<br />Increasing degree of student selection<br />(Joyful Reading – p. 9) <br />
SEM-R – Phase 2<br />Students will . . .<br />Enjoy reading books of their own selection<br />Read appropriately challengi...
	I have seen gains in their fluency, comprehension, as well as word skills. <br />	It is truly amazing.<br />
	The one on one five minute conferences are the best way for me to monitor each child’s unique learning needs, and be able...
	I know my students as readers and learners better than I ever have before.<br />
Classroom SRL: High vs. Low<br />Purpose for reading (engaging)<br />Materials to support metacognitive awareness<br />Exp...
Classroom SRL: High vs. Low<br />Organization of classroom<br />Clear set of expectations<br />Behavioral and performance<...
“From the standpoint of the child…he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school.  That is the isolatio...
The Program<br />Elementary – 5th Grade<br />Enrichment pull-out program<br />Environmental science focus<br />Coastal reg...
10 Fifth Grade Students<br /><ul><li>Gender
6 female
4 male
Identified
7 formal district procedures
3 teacher recommendation
Ethnic Diversity
6 European-white
2 Latino
2 African American</li></li></ul><li>Complete Autonomy to:<br /><ul><li>Engage in high-level content and real world learni...
Research and critically examine the impacts of regional growth on complex ecosystems</li></li></ul><li>Complete Autonomy t...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Extended Version of Research Focus

595 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
595
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
17
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Small to moderateLargesmall
  • Large effect sizeLarge effect sizeModerate effect sizeModerate effect size
  • Moderate effect sizeLarge effect sizeLarge effect size
  • Transference AbilityConceptual Thinking AbilityStrategy AwarenessInterest
  • Extended Version of Research Focus

    1. 1. Self-regulation and Learning:Gifted Pedagogy, Classroom Environments, and Students<br />Angela M. Housand<br />University of North Carolina, Wilmington<br />Presentation at the University of Alabama<br />Tuscaloosa, AL<br />
    2. 2. angelahousand.com<br />
    3. 3. 5619 Standardized Comprehension<br />
    4. 4. 12,635 Oral Reading Fluency<br />
    5. 5. 10,223 Likert Scale<br />
    6. 6. When Gifted Pedagogy…<br />…Meets Regular Classrooms<br />
    7. 7. Gifted education is the petri dish for general education programs.<br />(Gallagher)<br />
    8. 8. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented<br />www.gifted.uconn.edu<br />
    9. 9. SchoolwideEnrichmentModelReading<br />
    10. 10. The Enrichment Triad Model<br />Type II<br />Group Training Activities<br />Type I<br />General Exploratory Activities<br />Type III<br />Individual & Small Group Investigations of Real Problems<br />Regular Classroom<br />Environment in General<br />(Renzulli, 1977)<br />
    11. 11. SEM-R<br />An enrichment-based reading program <br />Designed to increase:<br />Reading achievement for all students<br />Enjoyment of reading<br />Self-regulation in reading<br />
    12. 12. Components of the SEM-R Framework<br />Increasing degree of student selection<br />(Joyful Reading – p. 9) <br />
    13. 13. Design<br />Experimental<br />Cluster-randomized assignment to groups<br />Pre/Post measures used<br />
    14. 14. Sample: Year 1 <br />Two Title I Schools<br />Grades 3-6<br />J = 14<br />n= 229<br />ntreatment = 110<br />ncontrol = 112<br />*Implemented as an after school program<br />
    15. 15. Methodology:Pre/Post Measures<br />
    16. 16. Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention reading comprehension <br />Statistically significant difference among treatment levels<br />Small to moderate effect size <br />(F(1, 120) = 7.08; p= .009; 2 = .06)<br />No interaction effects<br />
    17. 17. Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention reading fluency <br />Statistically significant difference among treatment levels<br />Small effect size <br />(F(1, 118) = 6.51; p= .012; 2 = .052)<br />No interaction effects<br />
    18. 18. Results: HLM<br />Used pre-assessments as covariates<br />Pre-fluency for fluency<br />Pre-comprehension for comprehension<br />Students in the SEM-R treatment group scored statistically significantly higher than those on the control group in reading fluency<br />
    19. 19. Sample: Year 2 <br />Two Schools – Suburban and Urban<br />Grades 3-5<br />J = 31<br />n= 558<br />ntreatment = 313<br />ncontrol = 245<br />*Implemented as partial replacement of regular basal reading program<br />
    20. 20. Methodology:Pre/Post Measures<br />
    21. 21. Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention reading comprehension <br />Statistically significant difference among treatment levels<br />Small effect size <br />(F(1, 550) = 5.31; p= .022; 2 = .01)<br />Difference largely explained by the urban school<br />
    22. 22. Results: ANCOVA<br />Post intervention readingfluency<br />Statistically significant difference among treatment levels<br />Small effect size <br />(F(1, 541) = 5.32; p= .021; 2 = .001)<br />Difference largely explained by the urban school<br />
    23. 23. Results: HLM<br />Used pre-assessments as covariates<br />Pre-fluency for fluency<br />Pre-comprehension for comprehension<br />Students in the SEM-R treatment group scored statistically significantly higher than those on the control group in reading fluency<br />
    24. 24. Sample: Year 3 <br />Five Schools – Suburban and Urban<br />Grades 3-5<br />J = 47<br />n= 1057<br />ntreatment = 608<br />ncontrol = 449<br />*Implemented as partial replacement of regular basal reading program<br />
    25. 25. Results<br />No statistically significant differences found between treatment and control<br />SEM-R replaced one hour of regular reading instruction without negative impact<br />Regression to the mean?<br />
    26. 26. Self-Regulation and SEM-R<br />Choice in activities<br />Opportunity for help seeking<br />Student participation in evaluation<br />Complex tasks<br />Choice of book <br />Individualized conferences<br />Student participation in assessment<br />Phase III activities<br />
    27. 27. Quantitative Procedures<br />Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)<br />Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)<br />Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)<br />
    28. 28. Sample Year 4 <br />Grades 2-5(n= 1252; J = 71)Demographics: Percentages by School<br />
    29. 29. Methodology: Pre-Measures<br />
    30. 30.
    31. 31.
    32. 32. Methodology: Post Measures<br />
    33. 33.
    34. 34. Methodology: Post Measures<br />
    35. 35. Methodology: Missing Data<br />Attrition (n = 115)<br />Pattern of missingness assessed in NORM<br />Remaining missingness: MAR<br />10 imputed data sets using NORM<br />“Average” set used for HLM<br />(NORM, Schafer, 1999; HLM6, Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheoun, Congdon, & Toit,2004)<br />
    36. 36. 240 Observations Conducted<br />Range = 1 to 8 per classroom<br />Over the course of 1 Academic Year<br />Methodology: Observations<br />
    37. 37.
    38. 38. Research Question 1<br />What are the effects of individual factors on individual self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use?<br />
    39. 39. Results: Random Effects<br />Significant between class variation remained to be explained:<br /> (00 = .040, 269 = 162.17, p .001)<br />Intra-class correlation:<br />7% of variance between class<br />93% of variance within class<br />
    40. 40. Results: Random Coefficients<br />Female<br />not significant predictor<br />Pre-Achievement<br /> (20 = .045, t69 = 1.95, p = .054) <br />Teacher Observations of SRL Strategy Use<br /> (30 = .055, t1247 = 2.75, p = .007) <br />Pre-SRL Strategy Use<br /> (40 = .665, t69 = 24.53, p .001)<br />
    41. 41. Results: Random Coefficients<br />Within class variability reduced by 44.1%<br />Between class variability reduced by 67.5%<br />Significant between class variation remained to be explained:<br /> (00 = .011, 269 = 110.53, p = .001)<br />
    42. 42. Results: Contextual<br />Grade (i.e. being in grade 2,4,or 5) not a significant predictor of SRL strategy use<br />7.7% of the between class variability is explained by grade.<br />16.7 % of the effect of pre-achievement is explained by grade.<br />None of the effect of pre-SRL strategy use is explained by grade.<br />
    43. 43. Results: Contextual<br />Pre-achievement no longer significant predictor of SRL strategy use.<br />
    44. 44. Implications: Achievement<br /><ul><li>Relationship between achievement scores and SRL strategy use corroborates previous findings that a strong relationship between academic performance and active participation in learning process.
    45. 45. Which came first?</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Gender<br /><ul><li>Influence from gender on SRL strategy use contradicted previous findings of strong relationship between the two.
    46. 46. Are girls really more self-regulated than boys?</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Grade<br /><ul><li>Influence same across grades on SRL strategy use contradicted previous findings that SRL strategy use increases with age.
    47. 47. Do the real changes occur at major transitions (e.g. primary to secondary)?</li></li></ul><li>Research Question 2<br />How much between class variance in SRL strategy use is explained by individual factors and how much by the SEM-R treatment condition?<br />
    48. 48. Results: Variance Explained<br />44.9% of between class variance is explained by individual factors and teacher observations of SRL strategy use.<br />No variance between classrooms was explained by treatment.<br />
    49. 49. Follow-up Question<br />After controlling for individual factors, how much between class variance in SRL strategy use is explained by the SEM-R treatment condition?<br />Were there treatment by school interaction effects? <br />
    50. 50. Results<br />After controlling for individual factors, no effect from treatment.<br />Treatment did not significantly influence effects on SRL strategy use from level 1 predictors.<br />There were no school effects.<br />There were no school by treatment interaction effects.<br />
    51. 51. Implications: Treatment<br /><ul><li>No effect from treatment...
    52. 52. Multiple previous studies suggest that environmental conditions, like those provided in the SEM-R, support the development and use of SRL strategies.</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Treatment<br /><ul><li>Size of study? Regression to the mean?
    53. 53. Broad application of pedagogy?
    54. 54. More influence from teacher style and expertise?
    55. 55. Implementation integrity?
    56. 56. Length of implementation?
    57. 57. Instrumentation?</li></li></ul><li>Implications: Treatment<br /><ul><li>We know that students are more able to regulate their focus on reading based on observations and student logs.
    58. 58. Instrumentation?
    59. 59. Self-report and teacher report measures?</li></ul>Growth not apparent?<br />
    60. 60. Research Question 3<br />Are there differences between SEM-R treatment and control classrooms on observable environmental characteristics that support self-regulated learning strategy use?<br />
    61. 61. Results: Caution<br />Time as a covariate<br />Wilkes Lambda used for MANOVA tests<br />Inter-Rater reliability (r = .70) on observations scale was not sufficient<br />Results become suggestions for future research rather than valid findings<br />Use Caution!<br />
    62. 62. Results: Environment<br />All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions<br />Average of 4 dimensions of Environmental Influence(F(1, 212) = 29.40; p .001; 2 = .122)<br />Choice in Activities <br /> (F(1, 212) = 129.55; p .001; 2 = .379)<br />Complex Tasks<br /> (F(1, 212) = 16.18; p .001; 2 = .071)<br />Participation in Assessments<br /> (F(1, 212) = 19.13; p .001; 2 = .083)<br />
    63. 63. Results: Observed Behaviors<br />All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions<br />Average of 4 dimensions of Observed Behaviors<br /> (F(1, 212) = 14.99; p .001; 2 = .066)<br />Students are Engaged <br /> (F(1, 212) = 33.82; p .001; 2 = .138)<br />Students have autonomy<br /> (F(1, 212) = 23.57; p .001; 2 = .100)<br />
    64. 64. Results: No Difference<br />Environmental<br />Help Seeking<br />Observed Student Behaviors<br />Solicit Information<br />Seek Help<br />
    65. 65. Implications<br /><ul><li>More reliable observation instrument should be developed.</li></li></ul><li>Implications<br /><ul><li>If findings were valid:</li></ul>SEM-R provides a different kind of learning environment<br />If the environment supports SRL strategy use and development, why then are there no differences between treatment and control on student SRL strategy use?<br />
    66. 66. Limitations: Instrumentation<br />DV based on self-report<br />Reliability of self-report scales based on use with older students<br />Oral administration of the scales<br />Lack of commensurate measures<br />Lack of inter-rater reliability on observation scale<br />
    67. 67. Limitations: Treatment Fidelity<br />Teachers reverting to former classroom practices<br />Whole class novel studies<br />Test Preparation<br />High Stakes Testing<br />Test-Taking Strategies vs.<br /> Reading Comprehension Strategies<br />SEM-R Skipped<br />
    68. 68. 255 Teachers<br />
    69. 69. 959 Classroom Observations<br />
    70. 70. 7010 Students<br />
    71. 71. When the Classroom Environment<br />Influences Student Performance<br />
    72. 72. SEM-R Classroom<br />Increasing enjoyment through interest and choice<br />Increasing focus in reading gradually over time<br />Student self-monitoring using reading logs<br />
    73. 73. SEM-R Classroom<br />Ongoing formative assessment<br />Enabling responsiveness to student needs<br />Embedded summative assessments<br />Student participation in assessment<br />
    74. 74. Components of the SEM-R Framework<br />Increasing degree of student selection<br />(Joyful Reading – p. 9) <br />
    75. 75. SEM-R – Phase 2<br />Students will . . .<br />Enjoy reading books of their own selection<br />Read appropriately challenging books (1 to 1.5 above their current reading level)<br />Develop self-regulation skills to enable them to read appropriately challenging books for at least 25-35 minutes each day<br />Have individualized reading instruction that is tailored to each student’s needs<br />Participate in self-monitoring and self-assessment<br />
    76. 76. I have seen gains in their fluency, comprehension, as well as word skills. <br /> It is truly amazing.<br />
    77. 77. The one on one five minute conferences are the best way for me to monitor each child’s unique learning needs, and be able to use strategies individually for each student that benefits them the most. <br />
    78. 78. I know my students as readers and learners better than I ever have before.<br />
    79. 79.
    80. 80.
    81. 81.
    82. 82.
    83. 83.
    84. 84.
    85. 85. Classroom SRL: High vs. Low<br />Purpose for reading (engaging)<br />Materials to support metacognitive awareness<br />Explicit instruction and modeling of strategies<br />Self-regulatory and comprehension<br />
    86. 86. Classroom SRL: High vs. Low<br />Organization of classroom<br />Clear set of expectations<br />Behavioral and performance<br />Participation in assessment<br />
    87. 87. “From the standpoint of the child…he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school. That is the isolation of the school - its isolation from life.”<br />John Dewey<br />
    88. 88. The Program<br />Elementary – 5th Grade<br />Enrichment pull-out program<br />Environmental science focus<br />Coastal region<br />Nearby lake and stream<br />
    89. 89. 10 Fifth Grade Students<br /><ul><li>Gender
    90. 90. 6 female
    91. 91. 4 male
    92. 92. Identified
    93. 93. 7 formal district procedures
    94. 94. 3 teacher recommendation
    95. 95. Ethnic Diversity
    96. 96. 6 European-white
    97. 97. 2 Latino
    98. 98. 2 African American</li></li></ul><li>Complete Autonomy to:<br /><ul><li>Engage in high-level content and real world learning focused on local, regional, and global contexts
    99. 99. Research and critically examine the impacts of regional growth on complex ecosystems</li></li></ul><li>Complete Autonomy to:<br /><ul><li>Apply skills of leadership, responsibility, productivity, and self-direction to achieve self-determined goals
    100. 100. Communicate and collaborate via the Internet with students from Norway</li></li></ul><li>The Instructor<br />PhD in Gifted Education<br />In depth knowledge of:<br />Dynamic learning communities<br />Curriculum for gifted and talented<br />Environmental science<br />
    101. 101. Connection to Norway<br />Gifted students<br />Advanced contact and planning between instructors<br />Surrounded by similar water bodies<br />Different climate<br />
    102. 102. The Researcher<br />27 visits<br />February through June<br />Exploratory study looking for emerging themes<br />Non-participatory<br />Non-instructional<br />
    103. 103. Major Finding #1<br />Difficulty accessing technology<br />Insufficient access to the internet<br />Too few computers in classroom<br />Inadequate computer hardware and software<br />iPhone used to circumvent school firewall<br />
    104. 104. Inadequate technology may have contributed to the failure of effectively creating a dynamic learning community with students’ in Norway.<br />
    105. 105. Major Finding #2<br />Self-advocacy and Self-promotion<br />Certain students emerged as leaders<br />Lead to distractions<br />Impacted access to technology and tools<br />Impacted opportunities to contribute<br />Impacted group assignment<br />
    106. 106. Major Finding #3<br />Differentiated Instruction<br />Instruction varied by learning style, process, and product<br />Almost no whole group instruction<br />Student groups were self-selected<br />Increased student engagement when products and processes were authentic<br />
    107. 107. Current Research<br /><ul><li>Poverty Simulation Committee
    108. 108. Administer Poverty Simulations
    109. 109. Assess influence on attitudes of in-service and pre-service teachers
    110. 110. Mission of the Watson School of Education is to prepare quality teachers
    111. 111. Value research on teacher preparation</li></li></ul><li>Future Research:Develop Instruments<br />Self-regulated learning<br />Classroom environments<br />Instruments for gifted populations addressing environmental influences<br />
    112. 112. Future Research:Underlying Constructs<br />Can SRL be studied without controlling for motivation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, metacognitive awareness, etc. ?<br />Other underlying constructs?<br />
    113. 113. Questions?<br />
    114. 114. Thank You!<br />
    115. 115. Special thanks to theSearch Committee!<br />Dr. Judy Giesen, Chair<br />Dr. Sara Childers<br />Dr. Jamie Satcher<br />Dr. Annie Smith<br />Dr. Sara Tomek<br />Dr. Elizabeth Wilson<br />

    ×