Welcome


My interest in the idea of sharing pedagogical purposes comes directly with the contact I have had with the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning at Monash University in Australia. Now each of these teachers were very active in establishing learning agendas with their classes. The impact they were having was inspiring. Each classroom tool can have a purpose beyond delivering content, and this needs to be shared.
I suppose the purpose of this website is collate, crystalise and open dialogues about how to increase this within classrooms. As the quote from Carl Bereiter illustrates this classroom methodology can empower our students.

Showing posts with label learner attributes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label learner attributes. Show all posts

Thursday, 7 June 2018

Defining self-regulation and metacognition.


Self-regulation and metacognition share a complex relationship:  both are useful in short term learning and both can be considered long term education goals. Those of us who have strong mechanisms for self-regulation and self-control learn more with less effort, enjoy learning more and go onto live happier and productive lives 
Student academic outcomes are also positively influenced by the use of metacognitive strategies, while good self-regulation is a strong predictor of academic achievement throughout school, for instance preschool children who are good self-regulation are more likely to be more proficient at Maths and reading. Therefore, both self-regulation and metacognition must be viewed as a boon to learning content and not merely an addition. In fact, there can be are “enormous” consequences for ours students in both academic endeavours and in social relationships if they fail to develop robust self-regulatory skills.
Thankfully, self-regulation is a learnable skill, and as such requires practice and feedback as would learning content knowledge. And so…
The next section is about the role of metacognition in the acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge.
Right now, you are probably thinking along one of three lines:
1.       Great, that sounds really interesting, or
2.       Great, that sounds awfully difficult: or
3.       Great, I already know something about that!
Instinctively, at the very inception of learning our metacognitive monitoring process kicks in. In retrospect, you will recognise all of these thoughts from your experience as a learner, but recognising them and controlling and using them are different matters. For instance, thinking that this section will be difficult could lead to the decision to go off to make a nice cup of tea, and thereby avoiding the effort you think is needed to read this. Alternately, it may be the spur to concentrate, to make sure that you get it. Self-regulation and metacognitive thinking are clearly wrapped up with motivation and its subsequent decision making
Self-regulation.
Self-regulated learning is our ability to understand and control our learning environment, and involves goal setting, selecting strategies and monitor our progress. The following diagram neatly summarises self-regulation. (adapted from Schraw et al 1996)
The simplest, and perhaps most potent definition of self-regulation is our “ability to inhibit automatic responses” This requires control over our emotions, the ability to focus and refocus our attention onto tasks and on our longer- term goals. When this is in place we can then choose the right cognitive process that will help us best complete the task. 
Metacognition.
Metacognition is perhaps the most intriguing part of self-regulation for teachers, as having well developed metacognitive strategies are “the distinguishing quality between good and poor learners” It is quite often given the prosaic thinking about our thinking tagline, that undersells its value. Metacognition simply means “beyond knowing”, inferring that it is about what we know, what we do not know, and the thinking that monitors and controls the learning process. In a sense, it involves us becoming the audience to our own performance. Flavell, the originator of modern educational views of metacognition neatly summated it as “a critical analysis of thought”, in which our knowledge about our own cognitive processes and products (or indeed anything related to them), are seen as something that can be used to regulate and orchestrate these processes. Thus, leaving us with a noble definition for metacognition as the abilities of individuals to adjust their cognitive activity in order to promote more effective comprehension.
Flavell’s model of metacognition helps to define what is useful in practical classroom terms. In Flavell’s model both cognitive and metacognitive processes interact to form our metacognitive knowledge about ourselves, the task at hand and potential useful strategies. The cognitive goals set the context for the thinking to be undertaken and are also the end point. 




Thursday, 16 December 2010

Behaviour Management by numbers

There is a big difference between behaviour management and behaviour "response" and I think this little vignette illustrates it.
Today we differentiated our three science classes by giving our students the choice of five different enquiries to pursue. I was working with a our weaker students on two different investigations. I was always going to be busy, but, today I got to the point of being too busy. I felt as though I was having no impact at all, keeping some on task, supporting others and extend others too. I was getting a bit frustrated and a few bits of poor behaviour were evident.
Thankfully I managed to curb my frustration and gathered the students together. I asked them what they were finding difficult? And compiled a list that ranged from access issues, attitude to learning or motivation and on taskness. All the things I had noticed. I then asked them what help they needed to overcome these problems. Too my surprise they generated solution to the problems that involved themselves or their peers, I was not included! It was great to see them (finally) acknowledge the need for responsibility in their learning.
So I asked them to give themselves a score out of ten for the responsibility shown in the first twenty minutes. They average out at around five. I then asked them if they used their strategies where they would be? This produced a score of about nine and a half. I allowed them to aspire to better.
So it was great to see over the next 45 minutes the transformation in the classroom. This would not have happened if I had of let my frustration rule the situation.We regularly went back to our arbitary responsibility score as it ebbed and flowed, and it never went below 7.5. Although abitary this strategy has allowed students to self monitior a learner attribute and to manage the situation (almost) by themselves.I got the productive classroom my efforts deserved and less fustrated!

This lesson has reminded me that students are absolutely aware of the expectations we have for them and they do respond to having responsibility. We just have to have a little trust in them.


Sent from my iPhone