Downloaded 12 times
More Related Content
Similar to Promoting & researching adaptive regulation: Successes, challenges & possibilities
Promoting & researching adaptive regulation: Successes, challenges & possibilities
- 1. 1 Promoting & researchingadaptive regulation: Successes, challenges & possibilities Allyson Fiona Hadwin Stephanie Helm, Lindsay McCardle, Mariel Miller, Elizabeth Webster University of Victoria, BC, Canada Research funded by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant Technology Integration & University of Victoria 410-2008-0700 Evaluation Research Lab
- 2. Overview • Context • Theoretical framing SRL-CoRL-SSRL • Scripting—Visualization—Awareness • Three examples: • Task Understanding • Planning in solo studying • Planning in collaborative work • Issues and challenges
- 3. 3 Context: Design-basedresearch st 21 Century Learning Learning How Assessing Learning How to Learning & to Learn Collaborate Collaboration Leveraging technologies to promoting adaptive learning in the face of challenge
- 4. 5 SRL as AdaptiveLearning Task Perceptions Large Goals Monitoring Scale Condistions Evaluating & Plans Adaptation Series of events Task unfolding within & Enactment across tasks (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) 5
- 5. 6 Lisa was studyingfor a midterm exam in environmental studies. Her professor told students the exam covers Chapters 5-7, and consists of 35 multiple-choice questions (worth 2 points each) plus 3 short answer questions (worth 10 point each). Lisa’s professor provided a list of testable concepts covered to date. Lisa looked over the list of concepts and created cue-cards for each one. She wrote the concept on one side and copied point form explanations on the other side from her notes or textbook. Over five days, Lisa quizzed herself by reading each concept and trying to remember exactly what she had written on the other side. When she faltered, she re-read her written points. Lisa repeated this process until she could make her way faultlessly through every card. “I’m totally ready,” she thought. When she read the first exam question, she panicked. Although the concepts she studied were included in questions, they were embedded in problem scenarios or in questions contrasting several concepts. Lisa received a C+ on her exam. Feeling devastated, she met with her professor. As they reviewed the exam questions, Lisa realized that when the professor said, “Know these concepts,” she meant “know how concepts relate to environmental issues and problems”. The professor explained this is why she had introduced case examples in each lecture and used those issues for discussion points in each tutorial.
- 6. 7 Task Goals Task Perceptions & Plans Engagement Conditions Conditions: Conditions: Conditions: Goal.... 35 MC; Chapter 5-7 List Concept = bigger idea of testable concepts Strategies I know These terms from Know means apply about – cue cards I’ve done lots of tests like What before in class Chp 5-7 this we do relates to to study have to 5 days how we Day by day cue card “know” in this course Make sure I really plan Operations goal profiles Constructing understand the task – & weighing confidence is not enough Operations : Operation s: Search, rehearse, : Sense making monitor Products Goal: Be able to faultlessly Products Products repeat the definition from memory by day 4 I am ready Need to know these I know these terms Plan: Find the definitions day terms 1 & make cue cards I can repeat them faultlessly Concept=definition BUT...the test doesn’t have any definitions..C+ Resource=textbook 7
- 7. 9 Task Task Perceptions Perceptions Large Scale Adaptation SRL Goals & Plans Co-regulation Large Scale Adaptation SRL Goals & Plans Task Task Enactment Enactment Shared Task Perceptions Collective Shared Shared Large Goals Scale Regulation Adaptation & Plans Shared Task Enactment
- 8. 10 Challenges researching regulation as adaption SRL as successful adaptation in the face of challenge • Historical and situational context matters • Context & purpose of regulatory strategies • Multiple samplings over time • Sampling across tasks • Intra-individual change • Within group change • SOURCE or who is actually doing the regulating
- 9.
- 10. PAR-21 Data for learner& researcher Guiding Prompt, We believe the data researchers need to study environments advise guide, regulation, are the same data learners need to improve for Regulation their own regulation Awareness tools for progress Compare Regulationto standard Mirroring-Visualizing Visual cues: Regulation learning activity & (Learning Analytics) progress Design environments Scripting + prompts for Regulation regulation
- 11. 3 Examples fromour research From Scripting to Awareness TaskUnderstanding Planning in personal studying Planning in collaborative work
- 12. Example 1: Task Understanding Scriptingto visualization
- 13. OSHIGE, 2009 Scripting toVisualization Scripting Solo Task Understanding Analyze your understanding of the strategy library assignment by completing the following questions What is the task? Provide a brief description including the task instructions I’ m being asked to make two identical 6 page booklets that are based on a childhood memory. Create four printing plates, that include one drypoint plate and three collograph plates. Use a chance process to randomly determine the order, colour, and placement of these plates on each page of the booklet. WHY has the instructor assigned this? What the main purpose of this task? The main purpose is to get the students experimenting with multiple plates, many colours, and different textures, while they are being pushed out of their comfort zones to build on their printmaking skills. From past experience, what makes an excellent (A+) version of this task? Exceptional ability to visually describe space, skill in printing and presentation. Physical and conceptual aspects demonstrated at an exceptional level. Student pushes themselves to provide exceptional work instead of just meeting requirements.
- 14. MILLER, 2009 Scripting toVisualization Scripting Solo Task Understanding: Visualizing Task Analyze your understanding of the strategy library assignment by Understanding: completing the following questions Immediate feedback Jason Cook
- 15. HADWIN et al Scriptingto Visualization Visualizing Task Understanding: Immediate feedback Scripting Solo Task Understanding: How well do you know your instructor’ s epistemological beliefs (Contextual Task Understanding)
- 16. Example 2: Personalized Planningfor studying From Scripting to awareness
- 17.
- 18. WEBSTER Scripting to Visualization PPT excel
- 19. Visualization to Awareness SRL report
- 20. Example 3: Collaborative Planning Fromscripting to awareness
- 21. Scripting to Visualization Scriptingsolo collaborative planning Scripting Shared group for each group member planning List the 4 reasons WHY your team is being asked to do the Collaborative Challenge Activity today? What does your team want to learn or achieve in the Collaborative Challenge Activity today? Based on your experiences in Collab Challenge 1, which of the following difficulties/tensions is your tem most concerned about encountering today? Explain.
- 22. Scripting to Visualization Scriptingsolo collaborative planning Visualizing Group Planning for each group member Group members’ responses are visible to each other
- 23. Scripting to Visualization Scriptingsolo collaborative planning Visualizing Group Planning for each group member Group members’ responses are visible to each other
- 24. Scripting to Visualization Scriptingsolo collaborative planning Visualizing Group Planning for each group member Alternative visualization tools Flow Charts Visualization Green = ideas mentioned by individuals and the group Red = ideas mentioned by individuals but not the group
- 25. Visualization to Awareness Scriptingsolo reflections on Visualizing collaborative reflections collaboration for each group for the group member
- 26. Visualization to Awareness Scriptingsolo reflections on Visualizing collaborative reflections collaboration for each group for the group member
- 27. From Visualization toAwareness Why is this important? Awareness is more than just displaying discrepancies between current state and standard (or desired goal) Awareness is about “seeing” and making sense of that discrepancy Personal planning tools: More than scripting today, seeing today in context with the other weeks More than visualizing the patterns over time, making sense of those patterns over time
- 28. 29 Findings In a recent case study of shared planning, most group members reported high consensus in their shared plans despite describing different ideas about the purpose of the task and different goals for the task in their individual plans (Miller & Hadwin, 2012) Group Member Task Purpose Consensus Jay Completely agreed Aaron Completely agreed Michael Mostly agreed Kelsey Somewhat agreed Green = ideas mentioned by individuals and the group Red = ideas mentioned by individuals but not the group
- 29. 30 In arecent case study of shared planning, most group members reported high consensus in their shared plans despite describing different ideas about the purpose of the task and different goals for the task in their individual plans (Miller & Hadwin, 2012) Group Member Goal Consensus Jay Completely agreed Aaron Completely agreed Michael Completely agreed Kelsey Somewhat agreed Green = ideas mentioned by individuals and the group Red = ideas mentioned by individuals but not the group
- 30. Charting future trajectories Scripting opportunities to engage metacognitively and reflectively in academic work Creating opportunities for learners to visualize patterns in their challenges, task perceptions, goals, motivation, evaluations in relation to past events and tasks (SRL as unfolding paterns) Scripting awareness of regulation patterns over time and tasks Leveraging awareness to guide and promote adaptive learning
- 31. Challenges & Opportunities When does scripting Scripting adaptive habits in become other regulation? learning When does guiding become Helping learners visualize data other regulation? across studying sessions – breaking maladapative patterns Who is doing the regulating (learner, computer, other Adaptive regulation is a lifelong person)? learning skill – not just for academic success Adapting in the face of new challenges vs. adopting Shift to view challenges and prescribed scripts errors as necessary opportunities to learn to regulate
- 32.
Editor's Notes
- #3 Both groups demonstrated fairly good quality of shared plans Both groups included 3 of the 4 task purposes described by the instructor Both groups left out individual ideas about the task purpose that could have contributed more alignment with the instructor Both groups set goals aligned with their perceptions of the task Although goals did not target the full breadth of ideas in their shared task perceptions AND Low performers left out individual’s goals that could have more comprehensively aligned their goals with shared task perceptions.
- #11 Scripting tools support learners by structuring steps in a workflow. To date, scripting tools have focused on promoting task management and more recently cognitive work or knowledge co-construction (cf., O’Donnell et al., 2005) rather than scripting the regulation of collaborative work. In PAR-21 we examine how scripting tools, including O’Donnell’s (1999) roles and prompts, can support regulation. Visualization or mirroring tools collect, aggregate and reflect information back to learners to boost awareness about how they engage as individuals and as a group (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002; Soller et al., 2005). However, Martens et al. (2011) found that merely providing learners with visualizations of their motivation scores did not promote motivation regulation because learners missed opportunities to reflect upon and make sense of that feedback. Awareness tools help learners compare current regulatory processes with standards they set out in goals. These tools target (a) group awareness such as knowing who is online, what collaborators are looking at and what they are doing (e.g., Leinonen, Järvelä, & Häkkinen, 2005); and (b) social awareness such as discerning team members’ knowledge and perceptions (Buder & Bodemer, 2008). When information is presented in a way that affords comparisons across team members or across teams, the tools support metacognition (Phielix, Prins, Krischner, et al, 2011). Guiding systems (Soller et al., 2005) use complex computational algorithms that “interpret” data and offer coaching or guidance (Azevedo et al., 2010).
- #22 Radar Chart \\s Web display of the idea. Red lines are what all the group members said individually (and how many people mentioned the idea (maximum of 4). Blue is what the group said together (maximum of 1). Doesn’t show what happened in the group discussion. Gives some idea of the overlap between individuals and the group, but somewhat misleading because group responses (blue) are out of a maximum of 1. If you take out the group response though, it gives a good visualization of the ideas mentioned by each individual (and how many of them mentioned it). For instance, this one shows that in this group, 3 people said apply concepts individually, and the group also said apply concepts. 2 people individually said master concepts, but the group didn’t, etc.
- #23 Radar Chart \\s Web display of the idea. Red lines are what all the group members said individually (and how many people mentioned the idea (maximum of 4). Blue is what the group said together (maximum of 1). Doesn’t show what happened in the group discussion. Gives some idea of the overlap between individuals and the group, but somewhat misleading because group responses (blue) are out of a maximum of 1. If you take out the group response though, it gives a good visualization of the ideas mentioned by each individual (and how many of them mentioned it). For instance, this one shows that in this group, 3 people said apply concepts individually, and the group also said apply concepts. 2 people individually said master concepts, but the group didn’t, etc.
- #24 Radar Chart \\s Web display of the idea. Red lines are what all the group members said individually (and how many people mentioned the idea (maximum of 4). Blue is what the group said together (maximum of 1). Doesn’t show what happened in the group discussion. Gives some idea of the overlap between individuals and the group, but somewhat misleading because group responses (blue) are out of a maximum of 1. If you take out the group response though, it gives a good visualization of the ideas mentioned by each individual (and how many of them mentioned it). For instance, this one shows that in this group, 3 people said apply concepts individually, and the group also said apply concepts. 2 people individually said master concepts, but the group didn’t, etc.
- #25 Radar Chart \\s Web display of the idea. Red lines are what all the group members said individually (and how many people mentioned the idea (maximum of 4). Blue is what the group said together (maximum of 1). Doesn’t show what happened in the group discussion. Gives some idea of the overlap between individuals and the group, but somewhat misleading because group responses (blue) are out of a maximum of 1. If you take out the group response though, it gives a good visualization of the ideas mentioned by each individual (and how many of them mentioned it). For instance, this one shows that in this group, 3 people said apply concepts individually, and the group also said apply concepts. 2 people individually said master concepts, but the group didn’t, etc.
- #26 Radar Chart \\s Web display of the idea. Red lines are what all the group members said individually (and how many people mentioned the idea (maximum of 4). Blue is what the group said together (maximum of 1). Doesn’t show what happened in the group discussion. Gives some idea of the overlap between individuals and the group, but somewhat misleading because group responses (blue) are out of a maximum of 1. If you take out the group response though, it gives a good visualization of the ideas mentioned by each individual (and how many of them mentioned it). For instance, this one shows that in this group, 3 people said apply concepts individually, and the group also said apply concepts. 2 people individually said master concepts, but the group didn’t, etc.
- #27 Radar Chart \\s Web display of the idea. Red lines are what all the group members said individually (and how many people mentioned the idea (maximum of 4). Blue is what the group said together (maximum of 1). Doesn’t show what happened in the group discussion. Gives some idea of the overlap between individuals and the group, but somewhat misleading because group responses (blue) are out of a maximum of 1. If you take out the group response though, it gives a good visualization of the ideas mentioned by each individual (and how many of them mentioned it). For instance, this one shows that in this group, 3 people said apply concepts individually, and the group also said apply concepts. 2 people individually said master concepts, but the group didn’t, etc.
- #29 Comparatively, nearly all students reported the perception that their group had reached consensus.
- #30 Comparatively, nearly all students reported the perception that their group had reached consensus.