Classroom Assessment Could and Should Parallel Self-Regulated Learning but That Parallel Is Difficult to Achieve

• In Event: Toward a Theory of Classroom Assessment as the Regulation of Learning

Abstract

My view is that parallels between classroom assessment and self-regulated learning (SRL) are ambiguous. Under particular conditions, classroom assessment could set a stage for SRL. However, I conjecture these conditions rarely appear in everyday classroom assessment. To the extent this is true, considering classroom assessment as or inherently parallel to SRL has weak validity. Notwithstanding, students and the educational system could benefit greatly by shaping classroom assessments to more directly match and encourage SRL.
Three main categories of information form the gist of students’ SRL (Winne, 2011): (a) factors that condition or influence how they engage in a learning task that is presently underway or will be assigned or selected in the future (e.g., resources available, efficacy expectation); (b) operations that realize working on the task (e.g., searching for information in the internet or by asking for help; transforming a textual description of a causal system into a concept map); (c) information (standards) used to metacognitively monitor qualities of particular engagements in learning, such as: the probability a particular learning strategy can generate a high-quality product (an outcome expectation), whether the student is capable of carrying out that learning strategy in the current context (an efficacy expectation), or where in the stream of acts comprising a learning strategy an error was made. If classroom assessment provides clear and timely information on these facets of engagement, it sets a stage for students to regulate their learning.
A significant issue is whether such information can be gathered in the course of everyday classroom assessments. For example, in order for a student to consider adapting or replacing a particular learning tactic, the student needs an assessment of qualities of that tactic’s use (e.g., whether or not it was used at an appropriate point in a task, which concerns conditional knowledge, or whether or not it was used skillfully). Without significant support (e.g., software like nStudy that traces learning tactics in detail; Winne & Hadwin, 2013), these kinds of observations are very difficult for teachers and even students themselves to gather across engagements with the multiple and overlapping tasks in classrooms and in out-of-class activities such as homework.
While necessary for classroom assessment to map onto SRL, providing reliable and timely information is by itself insufficient. Classroom assessments that convey appropriate kinds of information to students do not alter the fact that each student exercises choice about whether and how to use such information. This acknowledges that students are agents. Thus, motivational features of knowledge of results (interpreted broadly to include tracing how a student carried out a learning task) and formative assessment (interpreted broadly to include recommendations for a different path through a task) also are important in considering the parallel between classroom assessment and SRL.
To the extent that classroom assessment can realize the parallels just described, research suggests it would be substantially more valuable in promoting learning and informing teachers about how they could better support students. I encourage work to achieve that parallelism.

Author

• Philip H. Winne, Simon Fraser University