In most countries, such as Australia/NewZealand standards are practical and don’t set impossible goals. In the case of products, they are based on sound industrial, scientific and consumer experience and are regularly reviewed to ensure they keep pace with new technologies. Standards can cover everything from consumer products and services, construction, engineering, business, information technology, human services to energy and water utilities, the environment and much more. However, it seems when standards are applied to educational arenas the chaos begins because the standards are often designed in an impractical way and set impossible goals. Without SRL standards are chaotic and can discourage both the teacher and learner. SRL encourages proximal goal setting, one that can be attained in a specific amount of time. When the goal is being set paths to goal attainment are explored to be sure the goal is realistic and that goal achievement will increase self-efficacy.
The chaos suggested around the recently launched common core standards in the USA can be alleviated if teachers apply a SRL approach and use the standards as guidelines to set proximal goals aligned with each students individual learning needs. This can be easily done by becoming managers of standards based classroom instruction who implement how they are reached using SRL. Instructors who see the standards as guidelines to educate all students fairly have been able to use the standards to set classroom goals and learning objectives to reach those goals. In addition, these teachers employ self-regulated learning strategies to encourage students to take charge of setting individual goals, monitor their performance for attempt to attain their goals, and STOP and REDO the goal if they have set the goal too high. The standard remains the same, how to get there is what makes all the difference!
I recently watched a Teaching Channel video which encouraged teachers to help children develop growth mindsets by providing challenging work. I had an aha moment, growth mindsets can be developed through teaching self regulation when faced with challenging tasks and developing self-efficacy. The research is readily available but more can be done to raise our awareness that classroom teachers daily use these tools from educational psychology in classroom practices.
According to Carol Dweck, in a growth mindset , people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. When teachers focus students on learning from set backs and praise their efforts rather than how smart they are, increased learning and greater self efficacy are often the results.
In the video, the teacher presents challenging problem solving tasks and then works with her students to find the correct strategy to solve the problem. This is where SRL becomes the managing agent of the challenging task. In order to work successfully the students are reminded to ask for help when they are “stuck”, and to justify their need for help by stating where they are in the process. One of the statements made by the teacher featured in the video reveals her goal to have her students work through challenges by persevering to solving the problem, not necessarily arrive at the correct answer. As they work through the problems the teacher guides them by modeling and calling attention to strategic choices that can be used by the students to refine their thinking and responses.
Growth mindsets, self-regulation, and self-efficacy are researched based theoretical frameworks for educating all students. Our diverse classrooms will benefit from strategic approaches to learning using these tools in conjunction with standards based education.
Links: The lesson responded to Common Core Math Standards that require students to “Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them” (Math Practice Standard 1). Teaching Channel video (https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/persist-through-challenges-perts?utm_campaign=digest&utm_medium=email&utm_source=digest)
Assessment is the mother of good planning, The common core emphasizes formative assessment, the act of taking measurement of skill development at specific checkpoints over a time frame. The formative outcomes are evidence of weaknesses and strengths during the learning process rather than at the end (summative) when it is too late to intervene.
The CCSS encourage educators to know the status of each student’s learning by deepening the assessment process. The following link to Education Week is an example of how two teachers provide differentiated instruction through their methods of formative assessment. Deepening Assessment is described as a clear vision of the progress each student is making. Using the methods described by teacher researchers at the UCLA Lab School, teachers can adjust their lesson plans and provide necessary interventions to improve individual achievement. As described by Nancy Gerzon, a researcher who specializes in formative assessment , “It’s differentiation with more evidence as to why you’re differentiating.”
The article in Education week is an excellent example of how applying self-regulation to assessment increases the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction. Observing and measuring students’ behaviors during the planning, performance, and reflection phases of self-regulation can be a significant factor in formative assessment and successful outcomes.
What SR teachers do – page 17
I was working with an adolescent education student and asked him if he was applying Bloom’s Taxonomy in his lesson planning. He responded that he was familiar with Bloom’s but not sure if he was applying it correctly to levels of learning when planning his demo lesson.
It did not take me long to realize that although educators are aware of the importance of learning objectives being aligned with Bloom’s levels of learning, we have changed the title so many times that preservice teachers could become confused with the actual reason we use Benjamin Bloom’s conceptual approach to instruction and learning. Benjamin Bloom, when a professor at Chicago University, participated in an informal meeting of college examiners attending the American Psychological Association Convention in Boston. Bloom held the title of Associate Director of the Board of Examinations of the University of Chicago. It was at this meeting that Bloom and a group of others expressed an interest in developing a theoretical framework that they could use to facilitate communication and to promote the exchange of test materials and ideas about testing with other examiners. The group mutually came to an agreement that they could obtain this type of framework through a system of classifying educational goals and objectives. They set out to develop a classification system for thinking behaviors that were important in the learning process, so that examiners might have a more reliable system for assessing students and educational outcomes. This group of college examiners continued to meet informally at a different university each year, and eight years later the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives – The Classification of Educational Goals – Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain was published in 1956. (http://www.icels-educators-for-learning.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=67)
They devised a stairway with six steps, six learning levels. The six steps are rough estimates of how learning develops sequentially. Originally the steps were as depicted the diagram below (http://oaks.nvg.org/taxonomy-bloom.html).
Six levels of learning according to Bloom et al
The levels are thought to build on one another. The six levels in the figure pertain to thinking, the so-called cognitive domain. Here they are:
|There are six levels of knowledge according to Benjamin Bloom et al. The terms are reformulated and simplified in the figure.
However, over the years the taxonomy has been revised to reflect creativity, depth of knowledge, and much more, yet, the framework provides a structure for how we apply the common core standards as well. Spiraling up is a way to make sure that students “know” before they are asked to “comprehend” and then “apply” a concept.
As we approach another year of learning and instruction my goal is to provide a crosswalk from Benjamin Bloom’s hierarch of learning to the CCSS and result in learning objectives that reflect SRL! Stay tuned, the summer of blogging has just begun!
My youngest granddaughter and I were watching a Barbie dream house movie where everything happens instantly. Cupcakes pop out of toaster like appliances fully decorated, the closet dresses her, and her barbecue produces perfectly assembled hot dogs and hamburgers. The only thing Barbie is lacking is glitter, and that becomes the quest: searching for glitter.
I said to Reese, “Would Barbie pass the marshmallow test?” Remembering her own experience with the marshmallow challenge, the five-year old giggled and responded “Oh no! Never!”
What is the marshmallow test? I recommend watching the youtube video with Joachim de Posada sharing his landmark experiment on delayed gratification (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWURnHkYuxM) and how it can predict future success. Included in his short talk is a video of youngsters trying their hardest not to eat the marshmallow. What I find most interesting is the strategies they use to remain focused on the goal to not eat the marshmallow even when they are very tempted to have instant gratification. What is remarkable is the studies that followed the children collected evidence of the lifelong value of delaying gratification.
So while Barbie has her instant gratification lifestyle, Reese has her Nana reminding her that everything is a process and how much better it is to save our money for a trip to Target than to spend it on the candy placed strategically at the checkout counter. Delaying gratification is a self-regulatory strategy. I am wondering if the common core is attempting to teach young students to strategically approach learning, using tools and strategies to take difficult tests and as a result, raise their self-efficacy for future testing (Regents, SAT, ACT).
Someone needs to tell the thousands of adults sitting at their dining room table with children who are frustrated with their homework, that not everything is covered in class before it is sent home for homework. Homework has become preparation for what is to be learned in a future class.
Homework is now actually challenging and often the first exposure to the problem. Polya,the great mathematician, said problem solving must be a struggle, and he provided a sequence of steps to problem solve. Many schools offer parents and caregivers extra help to make homework the discovery of new ideas in preparation for instructional segments.
Backwards planning, or the flipped classroom has come into practice without telling the most important participants, the parents! Educators have found that the process of stepping back for the old model of using class time to expose students to new material has been a successful motivational factor in learning. Devoting class time to interactions rather than lectures takes students beyond content and into the stimulating world of problem solving and critical thinking.
So don’t be surprised if your student comes home with a challenging new task. It is okay to discover together that learning is a journey and our goal is to learn to ask the right questions not necessarily finding the correct answer until class time. Knowing how to ask questions is a goal of the common core and a significant part of the learning process….Self-regulated learners are help-seekers, asking for hints and moving on with their inquiry is a key motivational factor as well as a means towards building self-efficacy.