01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
What Does a Teacher Team Learn About the Use of Effective Collaborative Problem Solving in Maths Using Proactive Action Research?
Kate Ferguson-Patrick1, Beathe Liebech-Lien2
1University of Newcastle, Australia; 2Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Presenting Author: Ferguson-Patrick, Kate;
Liebech-Lien, Beathe
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is an impactful pedagogy in maths classrooms but it is rarely used, particularly in the younger years of schooling in primary maths classrooms (Luckin et al., 2017). OECD reports and PISA testing (Program for International Student Assessment [PISA], 2015) have highlighted the importance of both collaboration and problem solving as crucial 21st century skills in diverse classrooms. Cooperative Learning (CL) is one type of pedagogy that helps to develop collaboration and by using CPS in classrooms, teachers can aim to develop their students’ social and cognitive skills. Cooperative learning is a pedagogy designed to ensure all students participate to meet a common goal and has five essential elements to ensure it is effective (Gillies, 2003; Gillies & Ashman, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1994). It enables students to develop the skills of collaboration and be a resource for each other’s learning, so provides the opportunity for students to collaborate in problem solving activities. Both collaborative and problem-solving skills are essential especially as teachers need to be “better at preparing students to live and work in a world in which most people will need to collaborate with people from different cultures, and appreciate a range of ideas and perspectives” (OECD, 2017, p.5).
The paper explores the importance of supporting teachers’ learning and practice with CPS. Theories of learning (Piaget, 1959; Vygotsky, 1978) have shown clearly that children learn through collaboration (Williams & Sheridan, 2006). Cooperative Learning (CL) is a pedagogical approach that reflects the importance of a collaborative culture which allows students to develop both cognitive and social outcomes (Gillies, 2003; Johnson et al., 1990; Slavin, 1995). Teachers need to therefore plan activities that require their students to be engaged in dialogue, consider different perspectives, encourage tolerance and respect and develop interpersonal relationships. Problem solving activities also promote these skills and this research project examines the issues around Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) as one type of collaborative activity in classrooms to develop these skills and competences as a best practice pedagogy in maths.
The PISA 2015 framework defines CPS competency ‘as the capacity of an individual to effectively engage in a process whereby two or more agents attempt to solve a problem by sharing the understanding and effort required to come to a solution and pooling their knowledge, skills and efforts to reach that solution’ (Fiore et al., 2017, p.2). Collaborative problem solving (CPS) is composed of two main elements: collaborative, involving sharing or social aspects alongside knowledge or cognitive aspects. Thus, the primary distinction between individual problem solving and collaborative problem solving is the social component. This involves the use of communication, shared identification of the problem, negotiation and the management of relationships.
CPS is different to from other forms of collaboration having a group goal that needs to be achieved with the solution requiring problem solving, needing team members to contribute to the solution, and evaluation required to see whether the group goal has been achieved. It is important to ensure that there are various roles as well as ensuring activities of the team members are interdependent so that a single person cannot solve the group goal alone. The collaborative activities therefore require communication, coordination, and cooperation.
This paper examines how a small teacher team developed effective collaborative problem solving (CPS) lessons in their primary maths classrooms. It explores the following research question: How are teachers able to explore the use of effective CPS maths activities in a Professional Learning Network (PLN) and explore their students’ cooperative skills using a proactive action research approach?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe participants were a team of five primary school teachers who taught in a small primary school in a regional city in Australia. The team all taught in the same stage (age group) of students who were between 10 and 12 years old. All teachers were keen to explore CPS in Maths and see what kind of difference it could make to their students’ cooperative skills. As a teacher team, they also explored the benefits in being a part of a PLN. After a series of professional learning sessions with teachers that focussed on CPS maths implementation and resources teachers were asked to undertake one CPS lesson a week in their classroom. Proactive action research methodology was used (Schmuck, 2006) with the teachers learning about this approach in two sessions of two hours professional learning sessions that also covered: What is collaboration? What is CL? What is collaborative problem solving (CPS)? How can I use CPS in my maths classroom? How can I share my learning in a teacher team to develop my understandings of CPS? What do I notice about my students’ CL skills after implementing CPS in my classroom? It is important in a proactive action research process for teachers to consider how they can move their class forward as they try out this new pedagogy as well as determine how to support each other in the team.
The participants were also connected through a closed Facebook group as a PLN to allow the researchers to see how the teacher team encouraged “knowledge sharing and creation as well as the development of new practices and the joint trial and refinement of these practices” (Poortman et al., 2022, p.96). Teacher reflections were also collected once a week from each teacher by email or through a shared Google Drive.
The teacher team also came together for a final focus group interview to collect their final reflections on the project and also allowing analysis of how teachers collaborated in a PLN. They learned about teacher collaboration as their students learned about student collaboration.
The researchers then examined the focus group transcript and teacher reflections using reflexive thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As highlighted by Byrne (2022), ‘The reflexive approach to TA highlights the researcher’s active role in knowledge production (Braun and Clarke 2019). Codes are understood to represent the researcher’s interpretations of patterns of meaning across the dataset’ (p.1393).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe explored the types of social skills required in CPS as reported by the teachers and how these were developed during the CPS maths activities as they explored their approaches to CPS teaching and learning in their action research cycles. Their reflective observations, as well interactions with other teachers in the team, allowed them to make sense of the pedagogy and consider how others understood the process of introducing CPS. Cycles continued throughout the process of experimentation with many teachers demonstrating their understanding of the need for development of explicit teaching of social skills. Some of them used specific techniques to teach these skills, which had been taught to them during the PD sessions. Skills and strategies they observed included turn taking, everyone doing their part / allowing everyone to contribute/ accountability/ delegating, sharing resources or workload as well as mention of active and equal participation.
As the teacher team developed their skills in CPS in Maths they also utilised each other in a PLN experimenting with CPS in terms of grouping sizes and realising the need at times step back to allow for failure also encouraging their students to reflect and encourage perseverance in solving CPS tasks.
They often shared resources, recommendations, experiences and strategies with each other on the Facebook page as well as verbalised how they would retry activities in different ways to see which ones worked better. The Facebook Group allowed them to see the activities as well as learn about them.
Being a part of PLN helped them develop trust as they were involved in common structured activities together, as they implemented CPS in their classrooms. It also invigorated them as teachers and ensured that as a well-functioning PLN they were more likely to be reflective and willing to innovate (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007).
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Fiore, S., Graesser, A., Greiff, S., Griffin, P., Gong, B., Kyllonen, P., Massey, C., O'Neil, H., Pellegrino, J., Rothman, R., Soulé, H., & von Davier, A. (2017). Collaborative Problem Solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress Collaborative Problem Solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 35-49.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: cooperation in the classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
OECD. (2017). Collaborative problem Solving PISA in Focus (2017/78). OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/collaborative-problem-solving_cdae6d2e-en
Piaget, J. (1959). Language and thought of the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Poortman, C., Brown, C., & Schildkamp, K. (2022). Professional learning networks: a conceptual model and research opportunities. Educational Research, 64(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1985398
Program for International Student Assessment [PISA]. (2015). PISA 2015 Collaborative Problem Solving. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/collaborative-problem-solving/
Schmuck, R. (2006). Practical Action research for Change. Corwin.
Slavin, R. (1995). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on Students' Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 321-351.
Stoll, L., & Seashore Louis, K. (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Open University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Williams, P., & Sheridan, S. (2006). Collaboration as One Aspect of Quality: A perspective of collaboration and pedagogical quality in educational settings. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 83-93.
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
What Categories Do facilitators with Varying Levels of Facilitation Expertise Apply When Noticing a Fictional PD Situation?
Victoria Shure, Malte Lehmann, Vanessa Bialy, Bettina Roesken-Winter
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Shure, Victoria;
Lehmann, Malte
Mathematics teacher education has long been the focus of educational research. Much attention has been paid to university studies and training in schools in the early years (e.g. TEDS-M, Döhrmann et al., 2012). In recent years, the continuing development of teachers already working in schools has also become increasingly important. Professional development (PD) courses are crucial for advancing mathematics education, enriching teachers’ skills, and overall enhancing mathematics instruction (Prediger et al., 2022). Facilitators play a pivotal role in this process, significantly influencing teacher learning (e.g., Borko et al., 2011). Notably, facilitator expertise, particularly their ability to engage in noticing during PD courses, is instrumental in supporting teachers’ effective learning. Following van Es and Sherin's (2002) framework, noticing includes recognizing the significance of a situation, establishing connections between interactions and broader teaching principles, and using contextual knowledge to reason about interactions.
Facilitator expertise in PD settings, essential for navigating complex instructional scenarios, has been explored by Zaslavsky and Leikin (1999). However, recent research tends to overlook content-specific considerations while focusing mostly on generic aspects, relevant for different subjects (Prediger et al., 2022). To address this gap, our study focuses on content-related PD, examining facilitators' categories like pedagogical content knowledge on the PD level (PCK-PD) and general pedagogical knowledge on the PD level (GPK-PD). Particularly, we analyze how facilitators categorize a fictional PD situation.
The concept of noticing for teachers (van Es & Sherin, 2002) is also transferable to facilitators and PD settings. This transferability can be seen when aligning this framework with the PID-model proposed by Kaiser et al. (2015), which highlights situation-specific skills such as the perception of events, interpretation of activities, and making of decisions. In a PD setting, similarly to in a classroom situation, perception, interpretation, and decision-making are central processes of a diagnostic competence and skilled navigation of facilitation and teaching (Hoth et al., 2016).
In considering the expertise that facilitators bring to PD settings, frameworks for examining teachers’ expertise have been lifted to the facilitator level (Prediger et al., 2022). Specific to mathematics content-related facilitator expertise, Prediger et al. (2022) applied a content-related framework for teacher expertise (Prediger, 2019) to the facilitator level. The framework includes jobs as typical and complex situational demands that are connected to the facilitation of specific mathematics PD content. Furthermore, practices are seen as recurring patterns of facilitators’ utterances and actions for handling the jobs and are influenced by underlying categories, pedagogical tools, orientations, and situative goals. In regards to the knowledge that determines the facilitators’ categories or categorial perception and thinking that impacts the facilitators’ practices, this knowledge is connected to their pedagogical content knowledge for teachers’ professional development (PCK-PD). Such PCK-PD consists of the knowledge the facilitators have relative to teachers’ learning. More general pedagogical knowledge on the PD level (GPK-PD) refers to the knowledge facilitators have in relation to the management and instruction of PD courses such as related to motivational aspects (Prediger et al., 2022)
In considering these underpinning aspects concerning noticing and facilitator expertise, we pursued the following research questions as a way of examining the expertise and needs of the facilitators in a mathematics PD and qualification program, and specifically, as a means of examining the PCK-PD and GPK-PD that facilitators demonstrate when noticing:
1) How do experienced facilitators engage in noticing of a fictional PD situation?
2) How do less experienced facilitators engage in noticing of a fictional PD situation?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSample
In total, 156 mathematics facilitators participated in the PD qualification program for facilitators that lasts the first year of a ten year program for the qualification and professional development of mathematics facilitators and teachers. Seventy-two of the facilitators had experience leading 10 or more mathematics PD courses, while 84 of the facilitators had facilitated fewer than 10 PD courses.
Instrument
The facilitators were provided with a situated instrument, containing a fictional dialogue of three mathematics teachers in a PD who discuss the use of a learning application (app) as a means of supporting student learning. The teachers in the fictional dialogue champion less productive ways of using apps, by emphasizing short-term and motivational benefits of the app, while not reflecting on the lack of construction of conceptual understanding, means of promoting cognitive activation, ways to monitor students’ learning progress, and the development of a learning environment that stimulates communication. The facilitators were asked: 1) Briefly describe what stands out to you about this discussion amongst teachers in a PD? 2) How would you interpret the statements of the three teachers? 3) As a facilitator, how would you respond? Questions 1 and 2 prompted the facilitators to perceive and interpret the situation while question 3 provided the facilitators with the opportunity to show their decision-making concerning the situation.
Data analysis
The experienced and less experienced facilitators’ responses to questions 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed in terms of their categories for perceiving, interpreting, and deciding to act upon the situation. Thereby, the facilitators’ general pedagogical knowledge (GPK-PD) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK-PD) were distinguished (Prediger et al., 2022). The five principles of the PD were deductively coded with respect to the facilitators’ PCK-PD: conceptual focus, cognitive demand, student focus and adaptivity, longitudinal coherence, and enhanced communication. Each code was rated as 0 (category not addressed in response) or 1 (category was addressed in response). In considering the facilitators’ GPK-PD, their responses were inductively coded, yielding six categories: atmospheric argumentation, general digital media focus, methodological individualization, short-term success, affective-motivational aspects, and general description. The different PCK-PD and GPK-PD subcategories were assigned to facilitators’ perception/interpretation of the PD situation (questions 1 and 2), as well as to their decision-making (question 3). After several rounds of discussion, a Cohen’s (1960) kappa between k = .88 and k = .94 for inter-rater reliability for the coding was reached by the research team.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults
Concerning the first research question, it can be observed that the experienced facilitators refer to both PCK-PD and GPK-PD in both perception/interpretation and decision-making (P/I-PCK-PD: M=0.77(0.86); P/I-GPK-PD: M=1.37(1.09); D-PCK-PD: M=0.82 (1.08); D-GPK-PD: M=1.14(0.94)).
The second research question reveals that the less experienced facilitators also use both PCK-PD and GPK-PD. Here, too, it can be seen that GPK-PD is used more frequently than PCK-PD when noticing the situation. However, the difference between these two is greater than with the experienced facilitators (P/I-PCK-PD: M=0.52(0.77); P/I-GPK-PD: M=1.53(1.05); D-PCK-PD: M=0.64(1.06); D-GPK-PD: M=1.36(0.89)).
An experienced facilitator statement exemplifies what a strong PCK-PD focus for perception/interpretation encompasses: “Ms. M. and Mr. M. are pleased that the app contains tasks at different levels and adapts to the individual learning level of the children. No one makes a statement about whether the app works in an understanding-oriented way (e.g. with representations) and whether the levels of representation are interlinked, but this does not seem to be the case. This should be discussed with the teachers.” The statement from a less experienced facilitator exhibits their focus on GPK-PD for decision-making: “I would try to emphasize the positive aspects of the app and assuage potential fears or motivate people to try it out.”
Contribution
By uncovering differences in how facilitators with varying levels of experience engaged in approximated noticing of a PD situation, this research, in using a situated approach, provides insights into designing qualification programs as based on facilitators’ needs. Thereby, an emphasis on PCK-PD can be integrated into the qualification program so that less experienced facilitators can be better prepared for leading PD. However, it also shows that even experienced facilitators need support. By aligning the design of qualification programs with the needs of the participating facilitators, facilitators will be better prepared to offer PD for teachers.
ReferencesBorko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching in practice-based professional development programs. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(1), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0302-5
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2012). The conceptualisation of mathematics competencies in the international teacher education study TEDS-M. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44(3), 325-340.
Hoth, J., Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., Busse, A., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2016). Diagnostic competence of primary school mathematics teachers during classroom situations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1), 41-53.
Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Hoth, J., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2015). About the complexities of video-based assessments: Theoretical and methodological approaches to overcoming shortcomings of research on teachers’ competence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 369-387.
Prediger, S. (2019). Promoting and investigating teachers’ pathways towards expertise for language-responsive mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31, 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00258-1
Prediger, S., Roesken-Winter, B., Stahnke, R., & Pöhler, B. (2022). Conceptualizing content-related PD facilitator expertise. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25, 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09497-1
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596.
Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292
Zaslavsky, O. & Leikin, R. (1999). Interweaving the training of mathematics teacher educators and the professional development of mathematics teachers. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 143-158). PME.
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Literacy Resilience: Unveiling the Nexus of Linguistic Literacy and Self-Regulation in Learning
Alisa Amir
Ahva Academic College, Israel
Presenting Author: Amir, Alisa
Two fundamental assumptions underpin the current research. Firstly, every learning interaction is inherently a literate interaction. This signifies that students are expected to proficiently and flexibly navigate various modes, both spoken and written, in order to convey thoughts and emotions, formulate ideas and opinions, defend arguments, present information clearly and concisely, and effectively engage in quality communication tailored to specific goals, circumstances, and target audiences (Berman & Ravid, 2008; Tolcinski, 2022).
The second assumption - every learning interaction encompasses processes related to Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and Executive functions. SRL is essential in the learning process of students, as it enables them to manage and oversee their entire learning process (Jansen et al., 2019; Lichtinger & Kaplan, 2011; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 2023). The self-regulation process consists of three phases: the preparatory phase, where students plan before learning; the performance phase, where students employ cognitive strategies to successfully complete tasks; and the appraisal phase, where students reflect on their learning, evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies, and consider adjustments for future study sessions (Jansen et al., 2019; Pintrich, 2000; Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Zimmerman et al., 2023). These processes also encompass executive functions, which are a set of higher-order cognitive processes necessary for directing goal-oriented behaviors and tasks that are not carried out automatically (Spencer, 2020). Executive functions are particularly important in performing complex tasks like reading comprehension and writing (Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002). Skilled readers, for instance, must exercise control over their reading process, ensuring comprehension and employing diverse strategies (Landi,2012). Written expression also necessitates organization, planning, control, and the ability to analyze task requirements, make decisions, and allocate attention (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Kaplan et al., 2009).
These fundamental assumptions are the basis for building the student's literacy resilience. In this study, resilience is examined from both a linguistic literacy and a metacognitive perspective. It focuses on the learners' ability to navigate educational tasks that demand both literacy skills and self-regulated learning (SRL). These skills collectively form the foundation for cultivating literacy resilience. When a student approaches a literacy task while applying meta-strategic knowledge, they will be able to unlock their literacy resilience and autonomously manage such challenges without requiring the intervention of a teacher. This approach is not contingent upon previous failures but is seamlessly integrated into the standard learning routine.
Hence, it is crucial to comprehend the concept of literacy resilience, the methods for constructing and nurturing it, and the implications of fostering literacy resilience on teachers' lesson planning, classroom discourse, and students' approaches to their assignments.
This study establishes a theoretical connection between linguistic literacy, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) skills, Executive function and meta-strategic knowledge. In this article, a comprehensive definition of literacy resilience, will be presented. Additionally, an analysis will be presented to evaluate teachers' perceptions of their students' levels of literacy resilience.
The term "literacy resilience" (LR) is based on a theoretical connection between linguistic literacy, meta-strategic knowledge and self-regulated learning (SRL) skills. A combined definition of resilience is the ability to persevere in the face of challenges and cope with difficult situations through a set of processes that allow for better results despite the presence of significant threats / difficulties Linguistic literacy skills anchored in SRL are the cornerstones of the learner's literacy resilience (Amir & Heaysman, 2022).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used383 participants - teachers who chose to attend a lecture or a PD (Professional Development) course about literacy that was provided by the Ministry of Education.
The teachers filled out a questionnaire that was developed specifically for this study. The questionnaire consists of Likert scale questions with the following ratings: 1 (neither/neither), 2 (to a small degree/infrequently), 3 (to a large degree/frequently), and 4 (to an extremely great degree/always). Each question was based on one of the aforementioned facets of the definition of literacy resilience. The Cronbach's α for internal reliability test confirmed high reliability = 0.938.
Data Analysis
In order to answer the two research questions, first, a descriptive statistical analyses was conducted for each section of the questionnaire, including the mean, standard deviation, and range (minimum and maximum). Second, for each of the indices, three level-based categories were established: low, medium, and high. In the initial phase, the mean of each participant's statements for each index was determined. In the second step, the averages in each index into three categories were sorted: low, medium, and high. The low level included averages between 1 and 1.99, medium between 2 and 2.99, and high between 3 and 4. Thirdly, the frequency of each category was determined (low, medium, and high). Lastly, using ANOVA, the prevalence between age groups was compared.
1. The literacy resilience level of students:
(a) To what extent do teachers perceive their students as literately resilient?
(b) Will there be differences between the perception of teachers in different education levels (elementary, middle, and high school) regarding their students' literacy resilience?
(c) Will there be differences between teachers from different disciplines in their perception of their students' literacy resilience?
2. Will there be a connection between the degree of importance attributed to literacy resilience by teachers and their perception of the level of literacy resilience of their students?
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn examining the first research question pertaining to the level of literacy resilience of the students, it was discovered that the vast majority of teachers, regardless of education level or discipline, perceive the level of literacy resilience of the students to be low. According to the teachers, students require a great deal of assistance when completing assignments, as they have difficulty identifying their difficulties in a focused manner, are unfamiliar with suitable coping strategies for tasks requiring linguistic literacy skills.
This finding has implications for both the pedagogical-didactic and professional development aspects of teacher education. They present teachers with significant challenges of theoretical and practical knowledge as well as beliefs (Dignath & Buttner, 2018; Lawson et al., 2019). Therefore, it is essential to have professional development for teachers, based on aspects of literacy resilience, which include the development of linguistic literacy skills and SRL.
In examining the second research question - Examining the relationship between the variables revealed no correlation between the importance teachers place on literacy resilience and the perceived level of literacy resilience of students. they still perceive the students' level of literacy resilience as low.
Why is it crucial to foster literacy resilience?
Independent learner development is the pinnacle of education and a global trend (OECD, 2021). Literacy resilience enables students to become independent learners. A learner with literacy resilience will be able to navigate the technology-rich 21st century, manage his learning, plan a complete learning process from beginning to end, know how to ask questions, employ appropriate strategies, and monitor the process. It is an active process in which learners act as their own learning agents and are conscious of the process: they plan and manage the learning, observe their actions, evaluate their situation, and direct their actions accordingly.
ReferencesAmir. A, Heaysman, O. (2022). Literacy Resilience – how do teachers perceive it? Oryanut vesafa. 9, 81-96. (In Hebrew).
Jansen, R. S., Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., & Kester, L. (2019). Self-regulated learning partially mediates the effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100292.
Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self-regulation in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 51.
Landi, N. (2012). Learning to read words: Understanding the relationship between reading ability, lexical quality, and reading context. In Reading-From words to multiple texts (pp. 17-33). Routledge.
Lichtinger, E., & Kaplan, A. (2011). Purpose of engagement in academic self-regulation. SRL, (126).
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Academic Press.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 419-448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000902005111
Zimmerman, B. J., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein, C. E. (2023). Self-regulating academic study time: A strategy approach. In Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 181-199). Routledge.
|
