Developing Self-Regulated Learning Skills in Kindergarten ...



Running Head: DEVELOPING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING SKILLSDeveloping Self-Regulated Learning Skills in Kindergarten WritingKatelyn DeiningerKennesaw State UniversityAbstractThe focus of this study was self-regulated learning (SRL) in kindergarten writing. The teacher implemented a strategy to promote self-regulation during writers’ workshop in a kindergarten special needs inclusion classroom. A visual goal chart was implemented for five kindergarten students, four of which were special needs students. Students used this chart by selecting specific writing goals and self-monitoring (or rating themselves) based on their own achievement of the chosen goal. Weekly, students re-evaluated their goal based on how they felt they were doing. Qualitative data showed positive outcomes, including improved student writing, positive dispositions towards goal setting when paired with external rewards, and improved classroom learning behaviors (i.e. working quietly, staying on task, and staying in ones’ seat).IntroductionThe focus of this study is self-regulatory practices and their impact on young learners. One problem many young learners have is staying on task, focusing, completing their work independently, and thinking meta-cognitively about their work habits. Teachers frequently have to redirect and prompt students to do their work or to focus. Occasionally, there are some students who teachers find can work independently, without redirection, and perform successfully on tasks with little help. These are the types of habits teachers hope to promote in more students. We aim to develop students who are self-controlled, hard workers, behaviorally sound, and motivated to do well. Why do some students seem to naturally have these learning skills walking into the classroom while others do not? How can we improve this trait in other students who do not share these characteristics? Self-regulation is commonly referred to in two ways: self-regulated learning (SRL) and behavioral self-regulation. The term is a broad one that covers a lot of territory. SRL concerns motivation, affect, behavior, self-control, meta-cognition, goal setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluation. Many kindergarten students come to school as high maintenance learners with a constant need for adult support and redirection. By the end of kindergarten, these students will hopefully be considered independent learners who take ownership of their own learning, responsibilities, and behavior. Thus, SRL is an important skill that educators should try to promote in young children. Can educators teach young students to be self-regulated learners? This study sought to implement a strategy that could promote self-regulatory behavior in kindergarteners during writing. Since kindergarten students respond well to visual stimuli, a visual reminder self-monitoring strategy was used to promote self-regulated learning (SRL). The research question at hand is: Can a visual reminder for student self-monitoring improve self-regulated learning behaviors? Furthermore, through a weekly conference, the teacher looked to answer the question: What do students think about their own goals and behaviors when using this strategy? Literature ReviewIntroduction to Self-Regulated LearningSelf-regulation first entered the research scene in the 1980s (Rosen, Glennie, Dalton, Lennon, Bozick, 2010). Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a concept that is associated with an array of definitions, explanations, and components. At its simplest, self-regulated learning is the ability for a learner to play an active role in his/her own learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Self-regulated learning is of contemporary priority in education for two reasons: (1) it maintains close ties to academic achievement, and (2) it can be developed/learned (Patrick & Middleton, 2002). The former reason is of obvious importance since academic success is a primary goal of education. The latter reason is arguably even more consequential to educators because it establishes the teacher’s responsibility, suggesting she is a pivotal conductor in developing this skill that generates academic success. Studies support the notion that training interventions during school or after school can increase self-regulation, and ultimately academic achievement (Leidinger & Perels, 2012). Thus, teachers need to teach learners how to self-regulate. In a classroom this may look like students doing the following: (1) goal setting, (2) strategic planning, (3) taking action, and (4) evaluating and reflecting (Clark, 2012; Leidinger & Perels, 2012).One of the primary questions surrounding self-regulated learning is: How can SRL be adequately defined? (Butler, 2002). The concept is so pervasive that many researchers attempt to create categories or subscales to measure self-regulation, honing in on certain aspects of the idea. According to Cheng, self-regulated learning can be conceptualized in four dimensions: learning motivation, goal setting, action control and learning strategies (2011). Drake, Belsky, and Fearon explain that self-regulation is a type of self-management with intrapersonal aspects and interpersonal aspects (2014). The intrapersonal component of self-management includes planning and ability to control impulses; whereas, the interpersonal component lies in the ability to consider others, trustworthiness, and compliance with social norms and expectations (Drake, Belsky, & Fearon, 2014). SRL is also construed as a child’s capability to manage emotions, focus attention, and control behaviors (Rimm-Kauffman, Grimm, Curby, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). Barry Zimmerman, one of the more noteworthy pioneers in self-regulated learning research, and one who many subsequent studies have cited and referred back to, defines self-regulated learning as more of a process that involves students being “metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning” (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Everson describes this model as a simplified three-part cyclical process: plan it, practice it, and evaluate it (“Learning and the Adolescent Mind,” n.d.). In other words, the process of self-regulated learning is a cyclical loop in which students set goals, plan strategies for reaching their goals, monitor learning, self-evaluate, and reflect on their learning strategies, continually modifying based on experience and feedback (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001; Leidinger & Perels, 2012). According to Schunk and Zimmerman, one of the most important research questions in the study of self-regulated learning is “How does a learner acquire the capacity to self-regulate when learning?” (2001). This question runs under the assumption and common understanding that SRL skills can be developed and improved upon, which in turn urges the pedagogically relevant implication that teachers can and ought to teach learners how to be independent learners, or as Cheng put it, “teachers need to teach students both knowledge and skills,” (2011). Thus, self-regulated learning has significant implications for modern day pedagogy.Theories of SRLResearch and theories concerning self-regulated learning (SRL) arose in the mid-1980’s (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). For the past 30 years, numerous theories have developed and evolved in their perspectives, explanations, and emphases concerning SRL. In their book, Schunk and Zimmerman describe seven theoretical perspectives on the topic which I will summarize here. These include: operant, phenomenological, information processing, social cognitive, volitional, Vygotskian, and cognitive constructivist (2001). Operant theorists place emphasis on environmental factors (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Phenomenological theorists stress the role self-concept or self-esteem has on SRL (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Information processing theory asserts that learners continually process feedback (“input”) in response to SRL strategies to the point that they constantly modify the strategies (“output”) until the “standard” is met (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Social cognitive theorists maintain that SRL is developed primarily in social contexts through a series of four levels: (1) obseravation, (2) imitation, (3) self-control, and (4) self-regulate (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). Ultimately, social cognitivists emphasize the importance of modeling self-regulatory behaviors (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). Volitional theorists postulate that a student’s will directs his/her actions, emphasizing SRL is a matter of the will. Vygotskian theory describes acquisition of SRL in terms of speech internalization and social contexts. Finally, cognitive constructivist theorists hold that students construct ways to regulate self-competence, agency and control, academic tasks, and strategies (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001).It is important to take all theories into account when constructing action research regarding self-regulated learning. They cannot be entirely isolated from each other; rather, they all work together to provide a panoramic view of self-regulated learning.Predictors of SRLAttachment. A bulk of the research conducted around self-regulated learning surrounds the question: What internal and external factors act as predictors of self-regulation? Some findings suggest that factors which influence SRL extend back to even early childhood experiences. Drake, Belsky, and Fearon studied the impact of early attachment on later self-regulatory skills, finding that “secure children” (based on Bowlby’s “Strange Situation” experiment) were less likely to be inattentive, while “insecure children” were avoidant and disorganized (2014). Furthermore, this study found that children surrounded by more “adverse” or “stressful” social circumstances tended to be insecure, and they were more impulsive (Drake, Belsky, & Fearon, 2014). The theory as to why attachment may be directly related to SRL takes into account the generalization of the “secure base” that a child may take into other contexts. In other words, it is thought that a more secure child, as a result of their repeated emotionally supportive experiences, will be better able to represent what they believe their parents’ responses would be even in their absence (Drake, Belsky & Fearon, 2014). For example, imagine a child at the school cafeteria who has enough change to purchase ice cream, but knowing that his parents would disapprove of this, does not buy the ice cream. Even in the parents’ absence, he cognitively represents his parents’ “supportive response” to the situation, and self-regulates based on this. Researchers Kiss, Fechete, Pop, and Susa emphasize the importance of attachment as well as authoritative parenting, which leads to more positive development of independence, social interactions, and self-regulation (2014).While more research is needed on the impacts attachment and parenting styles have self-regulation, it is important for educators to consider that parent-interactions with children may impact their self-regulatory skills in the classroom. If a student does not have “repeated supportive experiences” or emotional support at home, then the teacher needs to aim even more-so to provide this caregiver supportive experience at school. If a teacher can successfully do this, a student who lacks support at home may find self-regulatory cognitive representations of his teacher’s responses instead, and react based on those. Classroom quality. While quality of parent-child interaction has been shown to be related to behavior problems in the classroom (Drake, Belsky, & Fearon, 2014), otherwise known as adaptive behavior, another major predictor of self-regulated behavior is classroom quality (Rimm-Kaufman, Grimm, Curby, Nathanson,& Brock, 2009). Adaptive behavior is another term for self-regulated behavior. While SRL is primarily concerned with learning skills and strategies, behaviors are a major component of self-regulation. According to Rimm-Kaufman, Grimm, Curby, Nathanson and Brock, adaptive behaviors include: (1) behavioral self-control, (2) cognitive self-control, and (3) positive work habits, and (4) engagement (2009). Classroom quality (instructional support, emotional support, and classroom management) was found to be a catalyst for these adaptive behaviors, with classroom management being the strongest predictor. Operant theorists tend to agree with this and emphasize the role of external factors (social, environmental) in a learner’s self-regulation skills (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). If environment and social context are predictors of self-regulated learning, then teachers allegedly maintain the lion’s share of responsibility for creating a classroom environment that fosters the development of self-regulatory behaviors. Emotions, self-efficacy, and motivation. A students’ ability to self-regulate requires self-generation of thoughts, feelings, and actions that will mediate their learning goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Feelings and affect are an important component of self-regulation. In fact, research suggests not only are positive emotions associated with self-regulation, but positive emotions also strengthen the relationship between self-regulated learning and academic achievement (Villavicencio & Bernardo, 2013). Feelings of enjoyment and pride, for example, play a substantial part in academic achievement, while negative feelings stunt achievement (Mega, Ronconi, and De Beni, 2013; Villavicencio and Bernardo, 2013.) Furthermore, negative emotional states that may stem from unsupportive environments can cause lower self-efficacy and lower motivation, which are both important to SRL (Clark, 2012). Self-efficacy, the belief in one’s own abilities, is especially fundamental in self-regulation; research suggests that self-efficacious students tend show concentration on tasks, manage time effectively, and monitor learning, making adjustments to strategies as needed (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). Motivation is also of utmost importance to self-regulation, and can manifest in various ways, including internal rewards (goal accomplishment) or external rewards (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2001). Mega, Ronconi, and De Beni’s research suggests that emotions alone do not promise academic success, but positive emotions do have a positive effect on academic achievement only when motivation and self-regulation are present (2013). Though emotions are internal, they are affected by external factors such as environment and social context. For educators, emotional support needs to be of primary concern in establishing a SRL promoting classroom environment.ADHD. Yet another predictor of self-regulation is ADHD. It is worth noting that a connection can be drawn between ADHD and self-regulated learning, for students with ADHD commonly have a deficit in their self-regulation (Glasney & Connor, 2010). Poor self-regulation alone does not necessarily suggest a child has ADHD. According to the CDC National Center for Health Statistics, the number of children in the U.S. who have ever been diagnosed with ADHD and fall between the ages of 3 and 17 was 5.9 million in 2012, or 9.5 percent (Center for Disease Control, 2014). This sizable figure is undeniably significant to educators who will likely have ADHD students in their classrooms, and thus can and ought to teach self-regulated learning strategies to these students. Gawrilow, Morgenrot, Schultz, Oettingen, and Gollwitzer set out to answer the question: “Is it possible to enhance self-regulation in children, who are known to have self-regulation deficits, by teaching them strategies for goal setting and goal implementation?” -(2013, p.136). In their study, they focus on a SRL strategy called mental contrasting, which is when the learner identifies a specific goal, imagines what successful achievement of this goal would look and feel like, and then determines what is currently hindering or in the way of that success (Gawrilow, Morgenrot, Schulz, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2013). The strategy heeded positive results, improving self-regulation in children at risk for ADHD (Gawrilow, Morgenrot, Schulz, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2013). ADHD poses a challenge to students who have it, their peers, and their teachers; however, if self-regulation strategies can be taught to even those with diagnosed deficits in self-regulation, then educators can potentially increase academic achievement among this population. SRL and WritingWriting is a complicated process that requires many demands on a student. In kindergarten, these demands include proper handwriting, capitalization, punctuation, spacing, topic focus, planning, sentence structure, word choice, and much more. Limpo and Alves studied the role of transcription (spelling and handwriting) and self-regulation skills in text generation (2013). They describe the importance of working memory in the writing process as students must retrieve “orthographic symbols” while executing fine-motor movements to write them. According to Limpo and Alves, writing demands self-regulation in order to meet literary goals. Zimmerman and Risemberg describe three self-regulatory practices students need to manage the writing process which can be summarized as environmental (physical or social setting), behavior (motor activities), and “personal strategies” (cognitive and affective; 2013). Limpo and Alves’ study found that self-regulation can be influenced by transcription for Grades 4-6 (the younger grades in this study). Limpo and Alves suggest teachers should begin promoting planning and revising in earlier grades to grow self-efficacy. Finally, Limpo and Alves (2013) state “it has been widely demonstrated that teaching self-regulatory strategies builds self-efficacy and enhances writing quality” (p.410). Though the study focused on Grades 4-6, 7-9, the implications for developing SRL skills can be applied to teachers of all grade levels. SRL and Qualitative ResearchThe primary methodologies used to study self-regulated learning are qualitative approaches. Allan, Hume, Allan, Farrington, & Lonigan (2014) studied the relationship between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten students. Since inhibitory control is a major component of self-regulation, this study offers valuable insight into best practices for research in this area and with a kindergarten population. In this study they compared different research approaches and deduced that teacher-reports about inhibitory control (IC) were closely associated with academic skills. According to Allan et. al. (2014), “researchers should include both behavior tasks and teacher reports to assess IC as there appears to be unique information associated with the type of measure used” (p.2375). Butler argues that qualitative research is best when that which is being studied cannot be separated from its context (2002). It is a challenge for researchers to classify and code actions since the same action can be a byproduct of different contextual factors (Butler, 2002). Patrick and Middleton emphasize the value of qualitative approaches to studying SRL because they offer comprehensive descriptions, affirm the social context within which the study takes place, and they tailor to complexity (2002). It is understood that whichever method is used in research provides only one angle of the subject, but to use multiple methods would provide a more holistic view of the phenomena (Butler, 2002; Patrick and Middleton, 2002). Observational research has the advantage of revealing student’s actions, rather than their own beliefs and recollections, which is beneficial when looking for behaviors; however, observation is unable to get insight into students’ thoughts, metacognition, and perspectives; thus, interviews and observations done in tandem make a dynamic duo (Patrick & Middleton, 2002; Butler, 2002). MethodsParticipantsThe action research here focused on self-regulated behavior during the portion of the day devoted to writing only. Participants were the students of a special needs inclusion kindergarten class. The research is limited to students who were already able to write sentences. Those students who were still working on letter identification and fine motor functions like handwriting and drawing pictures were not included in the study since these students have differentiated work that does not involve the writing journals the rest of the class uses. This study focused on five student writers who are able to draw pictures, label them, and write at least one sentence. The students consisted of four boys, one girl, and four of these participants are special needs students with SDD. The amount of time students are given for independent journal writing was 25 minutes with a 3 minute break in the middle to get up and walk freely sharing their writing with peers. During this time, the teacher did guided writing with a small group of students or one-on-one conferences. The teacher cannot meet with every student every day during writing, which makes self-regulated learning all the more important. There were two paraprofessionals in the room to assist the students during writing when needed. ProceduresThe methodology used for this action research design was a qualitative case study. The qualitative data included three qualitative means of collecting data: student self-reports, teacher observation reports, and conference notes (see Appendices A, D and E). Data was collected on students before implementation of the visual reminder self-monitoring strategy in order to have baseline data to compare with the data after strategy implementation. Student writing samples were also collected and analyzed alongside the qualitative data.Measures & DesignThe qualitative measures included student self-reports (how they rate their own daily writing), teacher observation notes, conference notes, and writing samples. The student rubrics include a rating of sunny, cloudy, or rainy. The data was collected with the “Student Self-Report Goal Chart” (see Appendix A) and the corresponding “Teacher Observation Report Data Sheet” (see Appendix D). The purpose of a teacher observation data sheet was to show whether there are variances in student/teacher reports of behavior. This may show that teachers observe a behavior and mark it while students are unaware of their own behavior and do not mark it. Since the participants are so young, the teacher observation will also act as a model for students learning to keep track of their own self-monitoring. There was no control group; instead, the data collected during the implementation of the SRL strategy was examined alongside teacher observation data taken the week prior to implementing the “Student Self-Report Goal Chart” in order have a baseline and to track whether the use of the data sheets showed improved behavior from when students did not use these self-monitoring sheets.Before collecting data, students first selected a goal from the “Student Goal Picture Cards” (see Appendix B). The goals that the students could choose include: (1) To work for all of writing time; (2) To stay in my seat for all of writing time; (3) To work on writing without talking; (4) To use proper capitalization; (5) To write three sentences; and (6) To use proper conventions (spacing and punctuation). Note that the first three goals are behavioral, and the last three goals are academic. One of the most important parts of self-regulated learning is that the individual has a goal in mind. Each student’s goal may be different. The students selected a picture card that stated in words what his/her goal was. The goal card also had a visual picture that corresponded to the behavior. Once student goals were selected, students also chose a reward to receive for each day the goal was met. The rewards offered included: (1) 5 Skittles, (2) Play with toys for 5 minutes, (3) 5 minutes computer time, or (4) 5 minutes in class library (see Appendix C).After selecting a goal, the students then received the “Student Self-Report Goal Chart” as a visual reminder on the table during writing which had both the student’s individual goal and the reward. Students were taught how to use these sheets and mark them. For the behavior goals, the student would daily mark tallies for anytime the behavior goal is not met during writing. For example, if a student’s goal is to stay in his seat during writing, but he gets up two times, then he must mark two tallies for that day. Students can still receive rewards, but the amount offered decreases. If a student had 0 tallies, the student earned the entire reward, however, for each tally the student had, s/he lost one portion of the reward (one less skittle, one less minute on computer, one less minute with toys, one less minute in library). Likewise, the academic goals, though scored differently, had the same rewards. For academic goals, students rated themselves on a familiar rubric based on pictures, rating whether their achievement of the goal that day was rainy, cloudy, or sunny. Rainy means there was no evidence of the student attempting the goal. Cloudy means the student showed progress toward the goal. Sunny suggests the student achieved the goal that day. For this scale, there was a corresponding amount of rewards. For sunny, students receive all 5 minutes or skittles (depending on the reward they chose). For cloudy, students received a partial amount (3 minutes or 3 skittles). For rainy, students will receive no reward.The teacher collected baseline data for one week prior to implementing the strategy. Then, the strategy was implemented for four weeks, during which the students self-reported on their own goal using their personal rubrics. The teacher met weekly with individual students for a student-teacher conference. During the student-teacher conference, the teacher discussed the student’s goal and offered the student a chance to decide if s/he needed to keep the current goal or change it. These conferences were documented through the “Teacher-Student Conference Prompts” sheet (see Appendix E). The purpose of this conference was to give the teacher a true idea of how the student was thinking about his/her behaviors and goals during writing. The research data was concluded with a “post” week, during which students no longer received a reward, and had the option of keeping or discarding their personal goal sheets.Data AnalysisData were collected through teacher notes and observations, student rubric self-reports, writing samples, and weekly writing conferences. Data will be examined first in light of student perspectives of the goal chart, then student achievements with the goal chart, followed by a comparison teacher scoring and student self-scoring. Last, each of the five students will be examined separately, focusing on: (1) strengths and weaknesses in writing before and during the goal chart implementation, (2) goal achievement with chart implementation, (3) factors influencing goal achievement, and (4) student perspectives of goal chart. Student Perspectives The student’s visual goal chart was a small poster displaying the student’s goal visually and in wording, as well as the student’s reward visually (See Appendix A, B, and C). Students also had a visual rubric for self-scoring on this chart (i.e. a picture for rainy, cloudy, and sunny). Overall, student opinion about the goal chart was positive. Students discussed in conferences with the teacher if they liked the goal chart and why. All of the students on a weekly basis commented that they liked having the goal chart. When discussing what they liked about the chart, three of the five students commented during conferences that they liked the chart because: “it’s helpful,” or “it helps me to remember what to do.” Three of the five students also mentioned specifically that they liked the chart because of the reward. One student even said he likes the chart because he wants to get “sunny,” which is a specific reference to the visual rubric on the chart. Overall, all five students expressed positive feelings towards the chart. Ultimately, this positive perspective of the chart seemed to translate to a positive disposition towards writing.Student Achievements Overall, the SRL goal chart boosted student motivation and achievement in writing for four students. It also acted as a visual reminder for self-regulation, keeping students’ thoughts on their learning process. All students improved during the course of the SRL strategy when comparing their writing from before implementation (pre) and their writing after the implementation of the strategy was complete (post; see Appendix F). Three students (C, Y, and J) showed peak performance within 2-4 weeks of using the goal chart. Student T showed peak performance after finishing with the goal chart (and no longer using it or receiving rewards). Student S also improved by 2 points his first week, but his post score only increased by 1 point. For the three students who peeked during the goal strategy, but dropped a few points after, their post scores were still higher than their pre scores. Student C’s post score was 4 points higher than her pre score; Student Y’s post score was 3 points higher than his pre; and Student J showed a 6 point increase in his post. All students improved from beginning to end. Table 1Student Achievement Total RainyTotal CloudyTotal SunnyT059C0610Y0310S2112J356*Rainy = Did Not Meet GoalCloudy = Progressing Sunny = Met GoalStudent and Teacher Scoring Students were excited to use the self-scoring rubric which had a visual of a sun, cloud, and rain. Students would use this rubric at the end of writing to “grade” their work by discussing their work with the teacher. Students tended to fairly rate themselves, with only two instances where a student said “sunny” even when the goal was not entirely met and needed teacher prompting to fix it. Table 1 outlines student achievement by showing the number of rainy, cloudy, and sunny ratings each student got out of the 19 total days of classroom writing. Three students (T, C, and Y) had not a single rainy. The other two students (J and S) had only 2 or 3 rainy days. Three students (T, C, and Y) received more sunny ratings than cloudy and rainy combined. Student S seemed to consistently receive cloudy (11 days); thus, he did not quite meet his goals fully except for 2 days.Factors Influencing Achievement During the course of data collection, there were three potential factors that were considered as possible contributors to student achievement, or lack of achievement: (1) student understanding of goal, (2) days of writing missed, and (3) use of rewards. Student understanding of personal goals is an important aspect in goal achievement. In most cases, students showed their understanding of their goals by stating them independently during conferences with the teacher. However, one student showed a consistent lack of understanding of his writing goals (Student S; See Table 2.1).Table 2.1Factors Influencing Achievement: Student Understanding of Goal Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4T3333C2333Y331*_**S2111J33331 – Does Not Understand 2 – Partly Understands 3 – Clearly Understands*Student did not remember his goal since he missed the previous Friday and forgot over the weekend.**Student was out sick for almost a week and we never had our final conference.Another potential impact on student writing achievement could have been attendance, or even interruptions in daily classroom routines. Some students were absent for numerous days due to illness, missed writing due to being pulled out of class, or the class may have been participating in a school-wide event, such as the “100th Day of School” celebration. These various interruptions may have impacted the student’s achievement of his/her goal. See Table 2.2 for the number of days students were present for writing, and Table 2.3 to see the number of days writing was missed.Table 2.2Factors Influencing Achievement: Days Present During WritingWeek 1*Week 2Week 3Week 4T3*343C3*544Y3*343S3*444J3*434*Week 1 there was no school on Monday due to MLK Jr. Holiday. Thursday that week was the 100th day of school, causing variations to writing time. Thus, no data was collected on this day.Table 2.3 Factors Influencing Achievement: Total Number of Days MissedNumber Of Days MissedT5C3Y6S4J5One final factor that might have influenced student achievement for the better could be the use of external rewards. Students discussed in conferences their feelings towards the goal chart, and on many occasions, students referenced the rewards as being a reason why they liked it. Data Analysis by StudentStudent T. During the week prior to implementation of the SRL strategy, student T was observed with challenges that included both behavioral (talking out and being off task) as well as academic struggles (spacing, punctuation, capitalization, and limited to one sentence). Student T’s goals were: write 3 sentences (week 1), capitalization (week 2), and work for all of writing (week 3 and 4). Even when T’s goals were academic, he showed improvements in behavior as well. Throughout the course of the 4 weeks, T went from writing only one sentence with mechanical errors to writing 2-3 sentences with fewer errors in punctuation, spacing, and capitalization. When his weekly writing samples were scored on a scale of 1-15 based on 1, 2, or 3 points for each of 5 writing components (capitalization, punctuation, spacing, 3 sentences, and behavior), he improved from a baseline of 7 to 14. He showed improvements in all five areas. His absolute best writing was the week after rewards ceased (during which time the student still wanted to hold on to his goal chart). Student C. During the week prior to implementation of the SRL strategy, student C’s observed challenges included both behavioral (talking out, getting up and not working the entire time) as well as academic struggles (inconsistent spacing, punctuation, capitalization, and limited to one sentence). Student C’s goals were: spacing/punctuation (weeks 1 and 4) as well as write 3 sentences (weeks 2 and 3). Student C’s behavior improved even when her goal was strictly academic. Throughout the course of the 4 weeks, C went from writing only one sentence with mechanical errors to writing 2-3 sentences with fewer errors in punctuation and spacing. Her capitalization never improved, but this was also never one of her self-chosen goals. When her weekly writing samples were scored on a scale of 1-15 based on a point system of 1(limited), 2(progressing), or 3(proficient) points for each of the 5 writing components (capitalization, punctuation, spacing, 3 sentences, and behavior), she improved from a baseline of 7 to her highest score of 13 (during weeks 2-4). She showed improvements in four of the five areas (all but capitalization). Her post score (after the rewards were no longer implemented) dropped to 11. This may suggest that this student, unlike the last, still needs some external motivation to encourage her self-regulation.Student Y. The week before the strategy was implemented, Student Y was observed having behavioral difficulties, such as getting up frequently and wasting time during writing (spending nearly 15 minutes just on his drawing). He also had difficulty with capitalization, making all of his letters uppercase, spacing, and punctuation. He did write more than one sentence, but he tended to write the same thing every day (i.e. “I love my mom I love my dad I love my uncle”). This did not relate to a goal, so he was not marked down on this. However, he was encouraged by the teacher to consider new topics, especially topics related to the objective (informational writing). Student Y’s goals included : write 3 sentences (weeks 1-2), capitalization (week 3), and spacing/punctuation (week 4). Y’s spaces and punctuation improved over the 4 weeks, as did his behavior. Before the visual goal chart strategy, Y had a baseline score of 8. His highest score was 13 in week 3 of the strategy, which dropped back down to 11 during the post week. Y improved in four of the five areas; for 3 sentences, Y stayed the same until week 4 and post when he showed a decline. Even though Y did not have a behavior goal, his behavior improved through the duration of the goal chart implementation, (though, it decreased slightly in the post week, when rewards were no longer offered). It is important to note that this student specifically mentioned the rewards being a major reason that the goal chart helped his writing. Like student C, this student also may benefit from a longer period of time with external rewards to motivate his self-regulation and goal keeping. Student S. Student S’s pre observation writing showed evidence of difficulty in academic areas only. S struggled with writing a clear, meaningful sentence, capitalization, punctuation, and spacing. No concerning behaviors were observed. This student’s goals included: spacing/punctuation (week 1) and capitalization (weeks 2-4). It is important to note that, based on teacher-student conferences, this student did not have a clear understanding of his goal during weeks 2-4. This may have caused him a lot of difficulty with capitalization. He showed only improvements during week one when he focused on spacing and punctuation (both of which improved for that week). These skills remained inconsistent once he changed his goal to something else. He did not show much improvement overall, with a baseline score of 9, a high score of 11 (in week 1), and then a post score of only 10. It seemed that for this student, the goal chart did not promote academic achievement. This is likely due to his lack of understanding of the goal. The teacher noted that this student’s developmental delay (SDD) also may have affected his writing more than the other SDD students.Student J. Student J’s pre-observation in writing suggested that his difficulties were both behavioral and academic. J especially struggled with staying on task (playing with materials), not working for most of writing, calling out, getting up, and overall being easily distracted. J’s academic challenge was primarily writing more than one sentence, with some inconsistencies in mechanics. J’s goals were: write 3 sentences (weeks 1-2) and spacing/punctuation (weeks 3-4). He began with a baseline score of 8, achieved a perfect score of 15 during weeks 3 and 4, only dropping to 14 during the post. This student’s did not only show academic gains with his academic goals, but he also seemed to improve his behaviors (even though he never had any behavior specific goals). Even though he still needed some redirection and prompting to get to work from the teacher, his goal chart seemed to also act as a reminder. While using the chart, Student J did not get so easily distracted once he began working. Occasionally the teacher noted that this student would prop up his own chart in front of him against the pencil caddy so that it was in his direct line of sight. The visual reminder seemed to be helpful for this student. Furthermore, based on his high post-score, this student may be able to maintain the goal setting practice without the need for external rewards and still be successful.DiscussionThe improvements seen in four of the five students suggest that the use of a visual goal chart with a reward can begin to promote self-regulated learning in writing. It is hard to separate whether the visual stimuli or the rewards were most effective, or to what degree they worked together. Visual stimuli is so important not only for special needs students, but younger students in general. Elena Bodrova and Deborah Leong highly recommend offering children “visual and tangible reminders about self-regulation,” (Developing Self-Regulation in Kindergarten, 2008). Kindergarten students especially need the visual stimuli for self-regulation and writing just as they do in other subject areas, such as pictures in reading and hands-on materials in counting or math (Bodrova & Leong, 2008). Nevertheless, it is possible that the visual chart was not the only reason for student success. Some students may rely more heavily on rewards than others, as was witnessed with Students C, Y, and possibly J. Rewards can definitely encourage success, but ideally students will ultimately be weaned off of the external rewards.Not only did this study show improvements in various writing skills and behaviors, but the strategy implemented also showed a positive response across the board. Writing can be a daunting task, especially in kindergarten. However, if a strategy like this one can excite students and promote positive dispositions towards writing, this may in turn affect student achievement as well. One important trend noticed in this study that was not anticipated was the improvement of behavior when an academic goal was in place. Even though most of the students did not select behavior goals, their maladaptive behaviors decreased as they took on specific academic goals. This suggests that when students have specific academic goals and are motivated by them, their learning behaviors can also improve. This is relevant to educators everywhere with students who struggle to be on task, stay focused, and stay in their work area. Some limitations in this research include the small participant sample, the limited amount of time, and the interruptions during the process. Since this environment was not controlled, there were many possible factors that may have influenced achievement beyond just the goal charts. The sample in this case was limited to five kindergarten students. Future research should consider looking at a large sample of students across grade levels. It would be beneficial to find out the importance of rewards to self-regulation at different developmental stages. It is interesting that even though all students were the same age cohort in this study, some tended to rely more heavily on rewards than others. Last, future research could follow the same students in writing over a longer period of time to find whether the ceasing of rewards causes a steady decrease in achievement, or if some students gain the skills and maintain them for an extended time without tapering off, even without the rewards.Future research in the area of self-regulated learning is still needed at all levels of development. It is especially important to continue pursuing the question not of whether children can learn to self-regulate, but instead what strategies can teachers implement to develop student self-regulation? Until more research is done in this area, it is important that classroom teachers remember that students can become more motivated and self-aware of their learning if they practice the self-regulated learning cyclical process of setting goals, monitoring those goals, evaluating them, and then making changes. Whether this involves visual aids, rewards, or some other strategy, it is important educators begin investing in building these skills as early as possible. Works CitedAllan, N., Hume, L., Allan, D., Farrington, A., & Lonigan, C. (2014). Relations between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 50(10), 2368-2379.Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (March, 2008). Developing self-regulation in kindergarten: can we keep all the crickets in the basket? Young Children on the Web. Retrieved from: Butler, D. (2002). Qualitative approaches to investigating SRL. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 59-63.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics (2014, May 14). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Retrieved from Cheng, E. C. K. (2011). The role of self-regulated learning in enhancing learning performance. The International Journal of Research and Review, 6(1), 1-16.Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205-249.Drake, K, Belsky, J, & Fearon, R. M. P. (2014). From Early Attachment to Engagement with Learning in School: The role of self-regulation and persistence. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1350-1361.Everson, H. (n.d.) Learning and the adolescent mind: Barry Zimmerman. Retrieved from: Gawlrilow, C., Morgenroth, K., Schultz, R., Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2013). Mental contrasting with implementation intentions enhances self-regulation of goal pursuit in schoolchildren at risk for ADHD. Motivation & Emotion, 37(1), 134-145, doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9288-3Glasney, S. & Connor, C. (2010). The association between self-regulation and ADHD in first grade classrooms. Retrieved from Kiss, M., Fechete, G., Pop, M., & Susa, G. (2014). Early childhood self-regulation in context: parental and familial environmental influences. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18 (1), 55-85.Leidinger, M. & Perels, F. (2012). Training SRL in the classroom: development and evaluation of learning materials to train SRL during regular mathematics at primary school. Education Research International, doi: 10.1155/2012/735790Limpo, T. & Alves, R. (2013). Modeling writing development: contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 401-413.Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 121-131.Patrick, H. & Middleton, M. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: what we see when SRL is viewed with qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27-39.Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L. & Brock, L. L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 958-972.Rosen, J., Glennie, E., Dalton, B., Lennon, J., & Bozick, R. (2010). Chapter 4: Self-regulated learning. Noncognitive Skills in the Classroom: New Perspectives on Educational Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Retrieved from Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.Villavicencio, F. T., & Bernardo, A. I. (2013). Positive academic emotions moderate the relationship between self-regulation and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 329-340.Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997) Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919 Appendix AStudent Self-Report Goal Chart: Academic GoalStudent Self-Report Goal Chart: Behavior GoalAppendix BStudent Goal Picture Cards: Academic GoalsStudent Goal Picture Cards: Behavior GoalAppendix CStudent Reward Picture CardsAppendix DAppendix EAppendix FWeekly Achievement by StudentNote: Shaded area indicates best weekly performance.Student T3 SentencesPunctuationSpacesCapitalizationBehaviorTotal ScorePre211217Week 12222210Week 23223313Week 32222311Week 43223313Post3323314Student C3 SentencesPunctuationSpacesCapitalizationBehaviorTotal ScorePre122117Week 13231312Week 23331313Week 33331313Week 43331313Post3321211Student Y3 SentencesPunctuationSpacesCapitalizationBehaviorTotal ScorePre321118Week 1321129Week 23211310Week 33322313Week 42322312Post2232211Student S3 SentencesPunctuationSpacesCapitalizationBehaviorTotal ScorePre221139Week 12222311Week 2211239Week 3211138Week 4221139Post2122310Student J3 SentencesPunctuationSpacesCapitalizationBehaviorTotal ScorePre122218Week 12233212Week 22333213Week 33333315Week 43333315Post2333314 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download