• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
PhD Check
 

PhD Check

on

  • 298 views

Premilinary ideas about the directions of the PhD Book.

Premilinary ideas about the directions of the PhD Book.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
298
Views on SlideShare
298
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • - Self-generated thoughts and actions are systematically used to affect one’s learning of knowledge and skills (Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; Winne & Perry, 2000).
  • Self-regulationcanbealsoseen as context-specificprocessesthatareselectivelyused to succeed in school.Behaviormeanschildren’sacademicperformancesthatareinfluencedcognitivefactors.In thisstudy,cognitivefactorsareviewedthroughself-efficacy. The environmentincludesinstructionalstrategies and learningconditionsthatwillaffectbothchildren’sself-efficacybeliefs and theirbehavior.
  • Combliting the sub-study III Writing and submitting the article IIIAnalysis of the sub-study IVWriting and submitting the article IVTheoretical review of (young children’s) self-regulated learning and self-efficacy Methodological review of research with children in general, video observation, stimulated recall and photo elicitationWriting the summary

PhD Check PhD Check Presentation Transcript

  • Young Children’s Self-RegulatedLearning in Efficacious Interaction Situations M.Ed. Elina Määttä - Together with AGENTS Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education University of Oulu
  • Young Children’s Self-RegulatedLearning in Efficacious Interaction Situations M.Ed. Elina Määttä - Together with AGENTS Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education University of Oulu
  • SRL model & Self-efficacy (Zimmerman, 2009)
  • SRL & Context (Zimmerman, 1990)
  • Self-efficacy• Means learners’ beliefs in their ability to perform effectively and to succeed in a specific situation (Bandura, 1982, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005)• Is content/situation/task related (Bandura, 1994, 1997) – Measurement accuracy (especially with children)• Includes a capability level ‘personal efficacy’ and strength of belief ‘confidence’ (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2003)
  • Self-efficacy• Means learners’ beliefs in their ability to perform effectively and to succeed in a specific situation (Bandura, 1982, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005)• Is content/situation/task related (Bandura, 1994, 1997) – Measurement accuracy (especially with children)• Includes a capability level ‘personal efficacy’ and strength of belief ‘confidence’ (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2003)
  • Why we need this study? Our ContributionEfficacious promotes Self- influencesinteraction efficacy SRL Confidence
  • Aims
  • Study I: Triggers for the efficacious interactionI. Task involvement and quality of efficacious interactionII. Triggers for productive activity and engagement1a. How do off-task and on-task involvement occur incollaborative learning situations?1b. What is the quality of on-task interaction?1c. Is on-task involvement related to the quality ofinteraction?2a. What are the different kinds of factors that triggerchanges in activity?2b. What triggers students’ to engage in on-task activity?
  • Research designN=69-10 years oldelementary school students10 hours of video observations(20 videotaped classes) – Script working phases – Roles
  • Phase 1Task involvement analysis (alpha 0.986, kappa 0.922) - Identifying episodes of group’s working processes and task involvement
  • Phase 2Interaction analysis (alpha 0.846, kappa 0.742) - Analyzing the quality of groups’ on-task activity Collaborative Cooperative Student(s) helping and assisting Lack of shared understanding and another student unequal participation Joint activity characterized by equal Working task individually with no participation and meaning-making sharing or joint meaning making
  • Phase 3Trigger analysis (alpha 0.846, kappa 0.509) - Locating the transitions between episodes - Exploring reasons why students decided to start or quit working on a task
  • Individual trigger Group trigger Contextual trigger Consists of individual’s Consists of positive or negative evaluation, Consists of contextual factors positive or negative comments, and actions from others. Social that affect students’comments or actions that reinforcement can take the form of verbal efficacious activity either affect one’s efficacious praise or criticism or non-verbal positively or negatively. activity. communication such as smiles, frowns, and gestures.
  • Results• Criteria for efficacious interaction – BEHAVIOR – ENGAGEMENT – ACHIEVEMENT• Triggers for on-task activity – GROUP PROGRESS TRIGGER – INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS TRIGGER – CONTEXTUAL TRIGGER
  • Study II: Confidence & successI. Characteristics of efficacious interaction situationsII. Young children’s experiences of confidence and success1. What characterizes efficacious interaction in classroom situations where young children feel confident?2. How do young children explain these experiences of confidence and success?3. Is there a relation between efficacious interaction, confidence, and success?
  • Research designN=24 16 hours of stimulated recall6-8 years old (M=7.375) interviews (n=57, approx. 2 interviews/child, 20elementary school students minutes on average/class) – What happened in the situation?32 hours of video observations – What did you do in the situation described in the video clip?(40 minutes on average/class) – What happened before this – Whole group discussions situation? – Small group activities – What happened after this situation? – Individual work – How confident were you of succeeding in the situation? Why? – How did you succeed in the situation? Why?
  • Data analysis Phase 1Identifying efficacious interaction episodes (alpha .927, kappa .859) Classroom Efficacious interaction interaction
  • Data analysis Phase 1 Phase 2Identifying efficacious Characteristics of efficacious interaction interaction episodes situations (alpha .883, kappa .795) Classroom Efficacious interaction interaction Child-task Child-teacher-task Child-child-task
  • Data analysis Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Identifying efficacious Characteristics of Experiences of efficacious interaction confidence and success interaction episodes situations (alpha .979, kappa .881/ alpha .927, kappa .859) Classroom interaction Efficacious interaction Child-task Child-teacher-task Confidence Success Child-child-task High Well Moderate Poorly Low Task related factors Previous experiences Feelings and emotions Own behavior and actions Feedback and support
  • Data analysis Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Identifying efficacious Characteristics of Experiences of efficacious interaction confidence and success interaction episodes situations Classroom interaction Efficacious interaction Child-task Confidence Success Child-teacher-task Child-child-task High Well Moderate Poorly Phase 4 LowRelations of efficacious interaction Task related factors contexts, confidence and success Previous experiences Feelings and emotions Cross-tabulations with χ²-test Own behavior and actionsEffect sizes for χ² with Cramer’s V Feedback and support
  • Results• Efficacious interaction contexts – CHILD-TASK – CHILD-CHILD-TASK – CHILD-TEACHER-TASK• Experienced confidence levels – HIGH CONFIDENCE – MODERATE CONFIDENCE – LOW CONFIDENCE – (NOT ABLE TO NAME)
  • • Reasons for confidence – TASK RELATED FACTORS – PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES – FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS – OWN BEHAVIOR AND ACTIONS – FEEDBACK AND SUPPORT
  • Study III: Self-regulatory behavior I. Young children’s self-regulatory behavior in efficacious interaction situations II. Triggers for self-regulatory behavior1. What characterizes young children’s experiences of success?2. What kind of self-regulatory behavior can be identified in efficacious interaction situations?3. What are the different kinds of factors that trigger young children’s self-regulatory behavior?
  • • Photo elicitation data: Experiences of success – Succeeding by myself – Succeeding with the help of an adult – Succeeding together with others• Video observation data: Self-regulatory behavior with CHILD – EMOTIONAL ELEMENTS – PROSOCIAL ELEMENTS – MOTIVATIONAL ELEMENTS – COGNITIVE ELEMENTS• Video observation data: Triggers that engage in self- regulatory behavior – INDIVIDUAL TRIGGER – PEER TRIGGER – CONTEXTUAL TRIGGER
  • Study IV: Efficacious profiles• According to MASCS – HIGH ACHIEVERS – LOW ACHIEVERS• According to Confidence – HIGHLY CONFIDENT – (MODERATELY) CONFIDENT – NOT CONFIDENT• Comparison between the two
  • Heidi Happonen
  • In conclusion…• Efficacious interventions• Exploring triggers and how they work• New methodological approach – Video vs. Photo as a stimulus – Researcher vs. Child Heidi Happonen
  • Heidi Happonen
  • Discussion • Need any clarifications? • Is there enough? • Any ideas for studies III and IV? • Should we consider different approaches to analysis? Thank you!!Heidi Happonen