Self-Regulated Learning and Preservice Teachers: Is Prompting Necessary?

• In Event: 43.013 - Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning Across Different Contexts

Abstract

Objectives: This presentation is framed around data from two studies exploring the impact of theoretically grounded prompts on pre-service teachers’ self-regulated learning.

Perspectives: Individual differences in academic learning can be explained by cognitive, motivational, and metacognitive factors (Alexander, 2004; Shraw & Sinatra, 2004). These factors have been theoretically framed as self-regulated learning (SRL; Azevedo, 2014, 2018; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013; Winne, 2018; Winne & Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2008). Despite the well-established positive relationship between SRL and academic success (McClelland & Tominey, 2011), however, many teachers report feeling unprepared to integrate instructional practices that support self-regulation (Lawson & Askell-Williams, 2012). Presumably, teachers’ integration of such instructional practices reflects their capacity to engage in SRL themselves. This presentation builds on the growing body of research that examines this assumption (e.g. Kramarski & Michalsky, 2009) through the following questions: (1) To what extent are pre-service teachers capable of SRL?; and (2) What types of prompts are needed to elicit SRL from pre-service teachers? These questions were examined through data from two studies guided by assumptions from the Social Cognitive theory of SRL (Zimmerman, 2001).

Methods: The first study included 32 pre-service teachers randomly assigned to one of two conditions: Control (no SRL prompts) or experimental (SRL prompts). Participants completed a learning task about student motivation in the classroom. Measures included prior knowledge (pre-test), use of SRL processes (concurrent think-aloud; Ericsson, 2006), learning outcomes (post-test), and mental effort (self-report questionnaire; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005). The second study included 64 pre-service teachers randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) Control; (2) SRL prompts: All three phases; (3) SRL prompts: Planning only; or (4) SRL prompts: Monitoring only. The learning session was identical to the first study. Measures included prior knowledge (pre-test), use of SRL processes (concurrent think-aloud), and learning outcomes (post-test).

Results: Embedded SRL prompts across all three phases enhanced instructional efficiency, as evidenced by the significant difference in learning outcome and a non-significant difference in mental effort between conditions in the first study. The second study further illuminates these findings by including additional experimental conditions with prompts for individual SRL phases. Results suggest prompting across all three phases of SRL, as opposed to a single phase, is significantly more effective for eliciting self-regulation with pre-service teachers.

Scholarly significance: Prompting pre-service teachers to self-regulate their learning did not negatively affect cognitive load experienced during learning, which suggests the participants have the capacity to self-regulate (i.e. SRL is not an effortful process). However, the participants did not seem to have the conceptual understanding of how to dynamically self-regulate their learning, as evidenced by the limited effectiveness of single phase prompts in the second study. These findings potentially offer implications for teacher education programs by highlighting the need to integrate explicit SRL prompting/scaffolding across all phases. This approach could better position beginning teachers to integrate instructional practices that support SRL in the classroom.

Authors

• Daniel Charles Moos, Gustavus Adolphus College

• Samantha Gibson, Gustavus Adolphus College