Self-Regulated Personalized Learning (SRPL): Developing iClass’s
pedagogical model
Aharon Aviram, Yael Ronen, Smadar Somekh, Amir Winer, Ariel Sarid
Ben-Gurion University in the Negev
Summary
This article reviews the development process of the pedagogical vision and model of iClass, 1 a selfregulated personalized learning project (SRPL) aimed at developing an innovative system adapted to
the needs of individuals. The conceptual methodology that guided this process is unique in its
attempt to structure the development for attaining coherent pedagogical results.
The iClass model has been developed as a direct response and corrective to the changing needs of
both educators and students in this postmodern/ digital era. In today’s global economy and labor
market scenario, iClass emphasizes the importance of personalized learning to reach Europe’s
educational goals (as stated in the Lisbon’s Objective of 2000), as well as for personal well-being.
Among the basic questions confronting the development of iClass, the model we present underscores
the importance of issues such as the decline of rational, strategic and mindful thought processes by
insisting on the need for developing self-regulated reflective learners who are able to make informed
choices and plan their learning process according to their own needs, interests and preferences.
By developing adequate tracking, profiling and matching capabilities, ICT can materialize the dream
of several generations of educators and thinkers. In this paper we argue that the development of a
system geared towards the personalization of learning must be accompanied by the development of
a set of pedagogical methodologies on three levels. However, since the realization of the SRPL goals
in European schools depends to a large extent on the usability of the pedagogical methodologies, the
major effort for future development based on SRPL will have to focus on refining and further
operationalizing them based on the evaluation of pilot experiments with teachers in schools.
Keywords: SRPL, learning platform, personalised learning, reflective learners
1 Introduction
The eclectic postmodern reality, reinforced by the digital revolution, presents educators and
organizations with a host of serious challenges and questions. Today’s education and pedagogical
modeling must take into account the radical changes that have occurred in virtually every aspect of
life. The iClass pedagogical model is developed as a direct response and corrective to the changing
needs of both educators and students in this postmodern/digital era. Among the basic questions
confronting the development of the iClass model concern the ways in which pedagogical modeling
can tackle the decline of rational, strategic and mindful thought processes, the ability to strategically
deal with and organize escalating amounts of information, and the recovery of a sense of self and
well-being. The iClass model underscores the importance of these issues by insisting on the need for
developing self-regulated reflective learners who are able to make informed choices, thoughtfully and
strategically direct and plan their own learning as well as tailor the learning process according to their
own needs, interests and preferences.
1
iClass (Intelligent Distributed Cognitive-based Open Learning System for Schools) is an integrated project funded under
the 6th Framework Program of the European Commission (Directorate-General Information Society); see
http://www.iclass.info for more information.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
1
2 Methodology
The conceptualization of the iClass model stemmed from a broad reading of ‘postmodernity’, and
calls for the adaptation of European education systems to meet the challenges of the 21st century, in
particular those relating to the virtual/digital reality. In order to realize this transition, educational
thought must disconnect itself from the prevailing modes of of 20th century educational systems along
with their rigid dichotomies between school learning and education, on the one hand, and lifelong
learning or even higher education on the other; between formal/structured learning and informal/open
learning; between learning and human development (i.e., education);between book-based school
practices and the digital world of young learners. We believe that these issues must be addressed by
the pedagogical thinking and R&D efforts in the area of technology enhanced learning (TEL).
The development process of iClass began with the formulation of the basic questions and challenges
facing this process, and proceeded by an analysis of the relevant social, pedagogical and
psychological discourses. We relied on this analysis for formulating the model’s educational goals - in
light of a desired ideology (humanism in this case) - and their operational definitions. Beyond the
model, iClass continued to develop the methodologies for implementing its goals in schools as well
as the system platform for enhancing them. In more concrete terms, the project’s systematic process
entailed:
− Developing an integrative educational vision for optimizing the response to the challenges
facing European educational systems in the 21st century.
− Deducing from this vision and from desktop research in relevant areas an integrative
developmental pedagogical model for enhancing self-regulated personalized learning (SRPL)
to implement the visionary goals.
− Designing an ICT-based educational platform to support and enhance SRPL.
− Designing an “envelope” of pedagogical and change-enhancing operational methodologies to
support the introduction of such an educational process and platform in European educational
systems.
In this article, we mention the methodologies only briefly – the system and an in-depth treatment of the
methodologies are left for future articles.
Beyond the project’s products, its R&D process was unique in bridging the gap between the human
and social sciences on the one hand, and technological design and development on the other.
Through this meta-disciplinary discourse, the R&D process gradually evolved from the most
foundational layer of educational thought towards the most operational methodologies and
technology. This R&D process, which is geared towards producing coherent educational results, is
unique both in the industry and in European R&D projects, which are often motivated by economic
considerations or tend to focus on “imposing” available commercial services and products on
contexts of learning, or on technological developments whose relevance for the broad context of their
intended users has not been thoroughly considered.
EC funded projects such as ProLearn, TENCompetence, EU4ALL and lately Grapple use IMS
Learning Design to simplify the authoring and running processes and to create and execute Units of
Learning. Their goal is to optimize interoperability among systems, notations and specifications and
encourage a major focus on the learning process itself no matter what technology an end user could
use.
However, these projects and other initiatives focus their efforts on the flexibility and adaptability of the
learning curriculum whereas the SRPL model is more "user centered" and thus is focused on allowing
users a growing level of autonomy and control while scaffolding their ability to reflect and experiment
with new learning approaches. It is assumed that these combined foci will increase the user's intrinsic
motivation and well being which are two issues that are currently mostly left unattended.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
2
We hope that by following such a process, we have created a tentative outline for a macro strategic
thinking on R&D processes in pedagogy and Technology Enhanced Learning in European societies,
which can contribute to similar large-scale processes.
3 The Primary Vision: Personalization and its Benefits
The ultimate goal of iClass has been to enhance personalized learning. Based on Cronbach & Snow
(1977) and Corno & Snow (1986) 2 , personalization is most generally defined as an adaptation of the
learning process and its content to the personal characteristics and preferences of the learner, as
much as possible.
Personalization can meaningfully contribute to a sense of both competence and autonomy (two of the
three significant conditions for fostering intrinsic motivation according to Self-Determination Theory;
see for example Ryan & Deci 2000, and below) and triggers the reflection of the learner on herself,
the learning process, and the relationship between the two. It has the potential to enhance
understanding, long-term memory, transfer and applicability of learnt content, or in other words, it
promotes learning how to learn and the possibility of becoming an effective lifelong learner (UK
Department for Education and Skills, 2006).
Specialists in the field of special education, for example, have been calling for the integration of
children with - what is still called - “learning disabilities” into regular classrooms and advocating the
pluralization and personalization of teaching and learning so that what today seems as a deviation
from the norm will be seen as a legitimate characteristic of one single approach to learning, namely,
the combination of learning styles, intelligences (in Gardner’s sense; 2004), interests, personal
temperaments, and so forth
Furthermore, on the organizational-economic levels, personalization is a sine qua non of the flexible,
ever-changing and adaptive Learning Organization (Senge 1990), which is the only organizational
form that can thrive in the postindustrial global economy. It allows positioning employees in roles that
best suit their capabilities by enabling them to become aware of their personal preferences and
interests and thereby to discuss with management the applicability of their roles to their personal
characteristics (Drucker 1993; Cunningham, 1999). Personalization impacts the organization’s ability
to forget and relearn, thus supplying the organization with the permanent initiative and creativity
necessary in today’s competitive global economy 3 . It is also a necessary condition for individuals’
ability to function effectively and satisfactorily in today’s hectic labor market.
Enhancement of personalization, and supporting an enhanced sense of autonomy and competence
(or personal empowerment), are values which stem directly from Humanistic European ideals and
support European educational goals (as stated in the Lisbon Objective of 2000, which were later
expanded at Gothenburg and then refined at Stockholm and Barcelona Also, lately, the bologna
process, 2005, which clarifies that " university is the trustee of the European humanist tradition") 4 .
3.1 Personalization of Learning and ICT
ICT can contribute to personalization to an extent that was unimaginable, unfeasible or uneconomical
until a decade or two ago. By developing adequate tracking, profiling and matching capabilities, ICT
2
These theories refer to aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI), but they constitute this exact idea of personalization. There
has not been any complete and operational definition of personalization that we could locate in our literature review (which
is a familiar problem; see for example Waldeck, 2006), but we found this definition to be accurate and suitable as an initial
working definition.
3
Peter Drucker claimed that an organization, whose staff does not forget everything every four years at the most and is
unable to relearn everything from scratch, is doomed to fail.
4
[Lisbon Strategy, 2000]. The Lisbon Special European Council (Marsh 2000): Towards a Europe of Innovation and
Knowledge.// http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10241.htm. [Bologna Process, 2005]. Delivering on the
Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation"
COM(2006)208 final, of 10.5.2006 - http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/comuniv2006_en.pdf
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
3
can materialize the dream of several generations of educators and thinkers in the fields of
constructivism, constructionism, learning styles, interests, intrinsic motivation, multiple intelligences,
open-learning (or distance leaning), and special education.
Personalization Technology (PT) is a fast emerging technology on the web which fosters informationliterate learners with the necessary multi-disciplinary skills to cater for anticipated life-long learning
(Fok & Ip, 2004). Mueller (et al 2001) has shown that the failure to incorporate personalization is one
of the central causes for the failure of e-learning models and projects.
3.2 Personalization of Learning and Prevailing Schools
It is the role of schools to prepare young people for the world of LLL and ongoing learning, and hence
for effective personalized and creative learning. It is their complementary role to enhance their
students’ ability and chances for leading a satisfying life and maintaining a sense of wellbeing in
today’s hectic environment or to equip them with the necessary tools in order to face (paraphrasing
Toffler’s 1970 title) the “present shock”. This in turn is a sine qua non for achieving higher levels of
social integration and active European citizenship, as well as decreasing senses of alienation
(especially among immigrants), violence and various addictions
These highly important goals of education, which are recognized by most educational authorities in
Europe and the West in general, stand in contradiction to the prevailing schooling structure, which is
still predominantly modern based (Aviram 2007). Hence schools and education systems have to be
changed, reformed and restructured (see Aviram 2007, 2008; Hargreaves, 1994; Fullan, 2007;
Sarason, 1982, 1990). Western schools often undergo a number of simultaneous change processes
which are intended to encourage schools to adapt to the new postmodern reality, relying among else
on the realizations described above. However, given the unsystematic and often merely declarative
nature of these change processes, they often lead to confusion, are counterproductive and even
contribute to the malaise of European schools (a fact elaborated and taken into account in the iClass
School Change Management Methodology).
Therefore, the development of a system geared towards the personalization of learning must be
accompanied by the development of a set of pedagogical methodologies on 3 levels:
1. Methodologies aimed at coherently formulating new practices and initiating their introduction
in schools in the support of using iClass:
− Classroom pedagogy methodology (see Aviram et al., 2007b, section 2)
− Content development methodology (Aviram et al., 2007b, section 3)
2. A methodology aimed at facilitating the incorporation of iClass in European schools:
− School change management (Aviram el al., 2007b, section 4) – Developed with the
understanding of the difficulty of introducing and supporting real and sustainable
change in educational institutions.
3. A methodology aimed at evaluating iClass in relation to the first 3 methodologies that
accompany it:
− Evaluation methodology (Aviram el al., 2007b, section 5)
Thus, we developed a package (consisting of a pedagogical model, 3 levels of envelope
methodologies, and a learning platform) aimed at bringing about the desired revolution in European
education, and driving forward the failed adaptation (Pelgrum & Plomp, 2004) from modern to
postmodern education. This transition is recognized by many thinkers and practitioners as urgently
needed (Hargreaves, 1994; Fullan, 2007; Sarason, 1982, 1990; Hernandez & Goodson, 2004;
Aviram, 2000, 2007, 2002; Abbott & Ryan, 2001, 1991; Perkins, 1992; Schlechty, 1990).
4 The Advanced Vision: From Personalization to SRPL
Since the beginning of the thinking process on the pedagogical model, we have been faced with three
basic questions/dilemmas:
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
4
1) Should personalization be carried out by automated customization (AC), in which the “machine”
tracks and profiles the learner and then automatically adapts the learning process and content to this
profile, Or should the learner (or in some cases the teacher) be in charge of actively and consciously
deciding the learner’s profile (and changing it whenever the need arises)?
The answer to this question seemed quite obvious to most members of the consortium. All of the
above advantages of personalization infer self-personalization, or in other words, they presuppose
the individual learner (sometimes aided and complemented by the teacher) as the conscious and
intentional initiator, leader and regulator of the learning process.
Nevertheless, as a first step in rethinking the desired vision and model, we launched a state-of-the-art
research survey in order to make sure that, indeed, the above statements are correct and are
substantiated by current relevant research. This systemic SoA survey indeed validated our basic
hypotheses. These are its conclusions:
−
The researches examined were “lab” experiments (except in regard to personalization
according to knowledge level) because there has been hardly any empirical data on actual,
working personalized learning programs or even agreement on defining the concepts of
personalization (Waldeck, 2006).
−
There are no generalized research or theory-oriented reasons to support the claim that
automated customization that operates independently of the self’s explicit knowledge and
engagement, can render learning more effective in any of the meanings mentioned above.
Surprisingly, this is the case, among others, in ability grouping or tracking, which many
teachers and schools hold as beneficial to learning results (Slavin, 1987; Wilkinson et al.
1999). With regards to learning styles, while there was a lot of interest during the 1980s and
early 1990s and many studies found that catering to LS increases motivation and
effectiveness in learning (for example Dunn & Dunn, 1987), these optimistic views have
since been harshly criticized particularly with respect to the validity and rigorousity of LS
research, and even the validity of the models themselves (Coffield, et al. 2004). Therefore,
today it is impossible to refute earlier findings, but it is clear that the research conducted is
not
enough
to
support
them
and
thus
they
remain
inconclusive.
It is important to note that Wilkinson et al. (1999) placed individualization and ability
grouping very low (effect sizes 0.14 and 0.18 respectively) in ranking the effectiveness of
typical school based innovations or factors (Hattie’s average effect size of introduced
innovations is 0.40; 1992). But since this study was a very broad literature review, validating
this finding might require further examination of the methods and definitions used, especially
regarding individualization.
Reinforcement
Students’ prior cognitive ability
Peer tutoring
Homework
Ability grouping
Individualisation
Team teaching
No. of Effects
139
896
125
110
3,385
630
41
Effect Sizes
1.13
1.04
0.50
0.43
0.18
0.14
0.06
Table. Effect Sizes for some school-based factors (Excerpted from Wilkinson et al. 1999)
−
This clear-cut finding regarding transparent customization might have one exception that is
only partially relevant to most European schools—interests. Individual interest is defined as
built on stored knowledge about, and value of, a class of objects or ideas and leads to a
desire to be involved in activities related to that topic (Boekaerts & Boscolo, 2002). It can be
translated to the choice of subject matter or kind of learning activity. At this stage we cannot
state with sufficient evidence that this is indeed an exception, but there is some rigorous
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
5
research that shows that catering learning to individual interests improves learning
(Boekaerts & Boscolo, 2002). More specifically, it improves attentional and retrieval
processes, acquisition of knowledge and effort expenditure (Hidi, 1990), and increases
persistence (Ainley et al., 2002). In addition, catering to individual interest increases intrinsic
motivation (Tobias, 1994; Boekaerts & Boscolo, 2002; Katz et al., 2006). This finding is also
valid in traditional-authoritative cultures (Katz & Assor 2003).
Thus, there are very good reasons to believe that letting the learner (sometimes with the aid of the
teacher) consciously choose or proactively explore her profile, as well as allowing enough options for
adapting the learning process in light of this profile, will lead to:
1. More effective implementation of the personalization process
2. Higher levels of intrinsic motivation, with its associated positive effects
It was therefore decided by the consortium that in order for iClass to support the development and
sustainment of intrinsic motivation, as well as the other advantages of personalization detailed above,
personalization has to accommodate choice and exploration of interests, and most importantly, the
learners themselves must be the ones in charge of their own profile.
Once the importance of self-personalization has been established, the next question was:
2) Which theoretical/methodological framework can best support self-personalization?
We found the self-regulated learning (SRL) framework to be the most natural basis for supporting
self-personalization. This framework requires:
−
Regulation of learning (i.e., planning-practicing and monitoring-reflecting)
−
That regulation is done by the self
The reason for grounding self- personalization on SRL is clear: self-personalization should be a
central element and goal of a learning process that is consciously, intentionally and mindfully
regulated by the self (on first-level learning as well as on the meta-level of personalization).
Importantly, self-regulation requires at least some extent of learner’s choice (depending on the
learning framework). It is meaningless to speak about self-regulation without planning, which allows
some degree (the more, the better) of free choice regarding the aim of learning or the learning
approach, or both. Allowing the learner to choose, by definition, means allowing her to choose
according to her preferences, and this allows some extent of self-personalization.
Thus the concept of self-regulated personalized learning (SRPL) was reached. SRPL stands for the
requirement of maximizing (for a given context and learning approach) the personalization of the
learning process, allowing for maximized self-regulation, and hence mindful and meaningful choice
by the learner.
Given that SRL has been defined as that which requires planning by the self, and hence some extent
of choice and self-personalization, why, then, use SRPL rather than simply SRL? Central views within
the literature on SRL emphasize the regulation process itself and perceive the self’s role mainly as
monitoring learning processes that were planned, completely or to a large extent, by others (a teacher
or a content provider). These central views certainly endorse planning, but do not seem to
acknowledge the need to give the learner a sufficient extent of choice regarding important or
meaningful parameters of the planning process, such as the aim of learning and the learning
approach (Zimmerman, 2002; Butler, 2002). Once both of these parameters are pre-given, planning
relates mainly to secondary technical issues that do not seem to make a real difference or be
meaningful to most learners (see Paris & Paris 2001). Thus, SRL largely fails to promote
personalization beyond secondary technical aspects of the learning process and to develop a
meaningful level of intrinsic motivation and its sustainment.
Moreover, while requiring regulation, SRL does not guarantee sustainable self-regulation since it is
improbable to expect the learner to truly regulate a process which she hasn’t fully planned according
to her preferences. The learner can “go through the motions” in a meaningless way, which is
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
6
something that often happens in education, but this amounts to “learning how not to learn” rather than
learning how to learn (Holt, 1965, 1970; Kohn, 2000). While laying the foundation for rational thought
processes in learning (or in other activities), SRL scarcely supports self-personalization, intrinsic
motivation and even sustainable self-regulation.
Thus, the complete elaboration of SRPL was achieved by combining self-personalization and SRL,
mainly based on two dominant theories and their various derivatives:
− Self-Determination Theory, or STD (Ryan & Deci 2000; Assor 2008; Vallerand, 1997; Deci,
Eghrari, Patrick & Leone, 1994) — the arena of investigating the conditions needed to foster
"Intrinsic Motivation".
− Theories and research on "Exploration " (Erikson, 1968; Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Kroger, 2000).
− Theories of "Choice" (Katz & Assor, 2006, in light of Self-Determination Theory; for example
Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2003).
− Theories of "Reflection" (Stark ,1994; Saylor, 1990; Riley-Doucet & Wilson, 1997)
− Theories of "Autonomy" (Hayamizu, 1997; Tanaka & Yamauchi, 2000; Yamauchi & Tanaka,
1998; Aviram, 2007, 2008)
By opting for SRPL, the third question was:
3) What will be the role of AC (i.e., profiling, tracking and matching) - the contribution of innovative
technology to personalization - in the SRPL-based iClass system?
We responded by stating that AC will be the cornerstone of the system and will support SRPL
dimensions in two complementary ways:
− The profiling, tracking and the presentation of their results to the learners (on demand or
pushed by the system) are an essential element in the reflection processes required for
mindful and meaningful choice and personalization as well as for self-regulation. The
Learners’ tracked data can be analyzed (according to given parameters) and offers a wide
range of information of their past behaviors and choices. Records of both the choices and
journal reflection entries regarding those choices (before the choice, immediately after, or long
after the choice) will allow the learner to form a thought-out opinion about the choice. This
kind of support for choosing and for reflection on choice can boost metacognition, and first
and foremost self-regulation and personalization.
− While demanding extensive regulation and personalization by the learner, it is obvious that not
all choice supporting options and functions should be open to the learner at once and in all
circumstances. The learner needs time to gradually digest them, and they have to fit the
circumstances, subject matter, school policy, and learner’s SRPL maturity. Hence, in most
cases of system use, at least in the early stages and in most schools, many options will be
closed to learners and will be gradually opened. In such contexts, tracked information
(combined with teachers or other authorities’ input) can be used instead of learner choice.
5
The SRPL Pedagogical Model: Definitions and Key Concepts
The aim of the model is to support (as much as possible given the constraints in each specific context
and in light of various teaching/learning approaches) personalization embedded in self-regulation,
and the enhancement as well as reliance on intrinsic motivation.
Personalization
We began with a basic definition of personalization as an adaptation of the learning process and its
content to the personal characteristics and preferences of the learner, as much as possible.
Combined with the decision to opt for self-personalization as described above, this means that
adaptation should be based on processes of learner’s choice and exploration.
Choice
In order to define choice, it is important to clarify that merely supplying the learner with
1. multiplicity of options regarding as many aspects of the learning process as possible
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
7
2. the freedom to select any of these option
simply amounts to arbitrary picking when it does not involve mindfulness and meaningfulness.
Picking is an empty selection that does not support the expression of the individual’s deep
preferences and characteristics.
Thus, for picking to become choosing (and thus competence and autonomy supportive), two
conditions have to be met:
1. Support for mindfulness: mindfulness stems from deep understanding of both the semantic
meanings of the terminology related to the choice options and their practical meaning.
2. Meaningfulness of the choice: once there is understanding of the choice options—at least
some of the choices stem from their importance for the individual’s preferences and personal
parameters.
3. These conditions have to be accompanied by the 2 conditions for picking (which is a
precondition for choosing):
a)
multiplicity of options
b)
the freedom to select among them
Options in iClass are called choice options, or choice variables, each of which can take changing
values.
Experimentation
The drive for experimentation stands in tension to the need for attachment and a sense of security, as
the process involves a level of uncertainty, ambiguity, and incoherence. Negative emotions can also
trigger an exploration process (Waterman, 1982). This drive can be acted upon in response to certain
environmental features or stimulation such as:
− affordance of exploration opportunities (in addition to offering choice)
− allowance for risk taking and erring by legitimizing mistakes and presenting them as
necessary building blocks of any learning process (higher learning is characterized by
directed error probing, self-testing and self-questioning as means to correct errors and to
redirect learning strategies; see Rafoth et al., 1993; Ertmer et al., 1996)
In the context of iClass, experimentation can happen with any option, even at the level of picking.
Reflection
Defined in two complementing and mutually supportive senses that are required by self-regulation
and self-personalization:
− Task-reflection: reflection on the task or process of learning, including its wider context
(mainly metacognition). It can be carried out before (planning), during (monitoring) or after the
task.
− Self-reflection: reflection on one’s individual parameters, including preferences, values, goals,
abilities, styles, interests etc. This type of reflection increases self-knowledge, which is
needed for the enhancement of personalization, self-regulation and intrinsic motivation.
Exploration
A combination of experimentation and reflection, exploration is a behavior in which an individual
translates innate curiosity to a deliberate active experimentation or nonlinear search for information,
its examination, and evaluation in a self-reflective manner (a search for meaningfulness) (Flum &
Kaplan, 2006). A precondition for exploration is provision of a multiplicity of options and the freedom
to try any of them.
While mindful and meaningful choice relies on reflection before action, meaningfulness can be
achieved at any point in the exploration process, including in retrospect (via reflection) (Schon, 1983).
The aims of exploration are the same as the aims of choice: it expresses the learner’s desire to
maximize mindfulness and meaningfulness, but it allows doing so through an active search that can
be to a certain extent arbitrary or adventurous, trying various alternatives or variables/values, and
examining their relevance to the learner through self-reflection in any desired order.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
8
Exploration can promote a sense of competence and autonomy, and when done consciously, it can
be used to support the development of individual interests and is thus motivational. It thus plays an
important role in the development and identity formation of young people (Erikson, 1968; Kroger,
2000; Marcia, 1993). According to Marcia (1966), commitments (in important areas in one’s lives) are
formed following “a period of engagement in choosing among alternatives” (p. 551), i.e., exploration.
Vocational exploration includes self-reflection (on interests, abilities, and values) and experimentation
with and reflection on the educational and vocational options. It optimally leads to the establishment
of a coherent career plan, matching choices of education and vocation, and ultimately for
engagement in a meaningful work life (Flum & Kaplan, 2006).
Self-Regulated Learning
The survey of SRL models led us to choose Zimmerman’s operational and concise cyclical model of
SRL phases (Zimmerman 2002; Zimmerman & Tsikalas 2005) as a basis for SRL in iClass. It is
comprised of the following phases, which epitomize the operational aspects common among models,
and at the same time it is simple enough to be understood by teachers and learners alike, and can
thus lend itself more easily to mindful and autonomous use:
− Forethought: processes aimed at enhancing performance, which are done before learning.
Include metacognitive processes such as task analysis, goal setting, and strategic planning,
as well as self-motivation from sources such as task interest or values, self-efficacy beliefs
and intrinsic motivation.
− Performance: strategies aimed at enhancing the quality and quantity of the learner’s
performance. Include the use of metacognitive and behavioral self-control strategies that were
selected during the forethought phase such as strategies of imagery, self-instruction, attention
focusing and task strategies, and self-observation strategies such as metacognitive
monitoring and behavioral recording.
− Self-reflection: beliefs and processes that influence forethought concerning subsequent
learning efforts. Involves metacognitive self-evaluation of the performance (comparison of
self-observed performance against some standard, such as prior performance, others’
performance, or a standard of performance), as well as affective and motivational reactions to
the self-regulatory efforts, such as causal attributions to personal control, feelings of selfsatisfaction/affect, and adaptive rather than defensive self-reactions.
Intrinsic Motivation
Originates in factors within the person and exists when engaging in activities for their own sake
without expecting tangible payoff for efforts, intrinsic motivation is the inherent tendency to seek out
novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn. Research
guided by scientists working in the framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci,
2000; Deci & Ryan 2000), specifically by Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), a sub-theory within
SDT, has focused on the environmental conditions (social and contextual) that facilitate and sustain,
or inhibit, self-motivation and healthy psychological development, and specifically intrinsic motivation,
self-regulation and wellbeing. Those psychological needs are:
1. Perceived competence
2. Sense of autonomy (self directedness)
3. Relatedness (sense of acceptance)
Perceived competence: A feeling of competence and efficacy during action. This can be supported by
gradual unveiling of new concepts and breaking tasks to sub-tasks according to the learner’s
progress, i.e., in a pace that is not too fast or too slow, but optimal for the learner’s ability to
understand.
Sense of autonomy (self direction): A perceived internal locus of causality, or self-determined
behavior. This need stems from the strive to feel and perceive that one does (in her life) what one
truly wants to do, that the things one does emanate from one’s true self, that one can fully endorse
what one does, and that one acts with a sense of choice and not out of external pressure or internal
compulsion created by feelings of shame or guilt.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
9
Relatedness (sense of acceptance): Relatedness is the immediate contextual support for autonomy
and competence — a sense of security. Proximal relational supports may not be necessary for intrinsic
motivation, but a secure relational base does seem to be important. Relatedness is supported by
language of acceptance, assessment of actions rather than of the individual, and group reflections
(forums, chats, and other communication tools).
6 The Relationship among the SRPL Model Entities
Once these definitions are clear, the relationship among them – or the model – is quite easy to grasp
(presented here briefly):
a. The SRPL model has three basic educational goals: personalization, self-regulation and
intrinsic motivation.
b. These aims are dependent and partially overlap. They support, complement, and enhance
each other.
c. To a large extent, one cannot meaningfully develop one without the others. In other words,
each of them is a necessary condition for the attainment of the others.
Image 1. The relationships among the SRPL model goals
7 SRPL vis-à-vis Teaching/Learning Approaches
SRPL is a normative prescriptive perspective rather than a specific teaching/learning approach. As
such, it is not limited to a single teaching and learning approach and acknowledges personal
differences among individual learners and teachers, varying learning situations, school-specific
pedagogical goals and cultures and wider social and cultural contexts. It facilitates the analysis of all
teaching/learning approaches, and supports the process of changing them if a change is desired.
Thus, the iClass pedagogical model aims to accommodate all teaching/learning approaches
(theoretical references to learning) and programs (practical references), as long as they allow a
minimal amount of choice, self-regulation and reflection, or in other words as long as they allow a
minimal amount of openness 5 .
5
The openness level of a learning process correlates to the:
amount of choice options in a learning unit
extensiveness of choice in all aspects of learning
potential impact of these choice options on the learning process (they have to be non-trivial in order to have some
impact)
•
support for reflection associated with these choices and the resulting learning process
•
•
•
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
10
However, the more open an approach or program, the higher the SRPL level it permits, namely, its
functions are more meaningful to the individual student 6 . Open-endedness 7 is not a necessary
condition for openness. For example, a meaningful extent of openness can exist in close-ended
processes. We take this fact to be central in the possibility to introduce SRPL, iClass and its
accompanying methodologies into conventional schooling. For the sake of SRPL and iClass, openendedness is not important in itself but for allowing higher levels of openness.
Thus iClass, via its school change management methodology, should support teachers and learners
in gradually moving along two continua:
1. Toward open-endedness of the learning processes
2. Toward openness of the learning processes
These are continua (rather than dichotomous extremes), so varying levels of openness are possible,
as well as varying levels of open-endedness.
In order to enhance SRPL in all learning approaches, the SRPL model devises a 5-Dimensional
Matrix for Characterizing Teaching/Learning Approaches (see Aviram et al., 2007a, section 2.2). This
tool allows teachers to characterize their approach in a very concrete way, and on the basis of this
characterization use the following methodologies:
− Classroom pedagogy and content development methodologies (see Aviram et al., 2007b,
sections 2 and 3 respectively). These methodologies facilitate content authoring and
designing lessons in the framework of any approach in order to optimize the use of the level of
openness it initially allows for enhancing the SRPL goals.
− School change management methodology (see Aviram et al., 2007b, sections 4). This
methodology guides change agents within the school in aiding teachers to advance along the
openness and open-endedness continua.
8 Practicing SRPL
Given the flexibility of SRPL and iClass, it can be implemented in many ways with differing levels of
openness and choice and in various learning environments. For instance, iClass’s planning tool
enables the user (teacher or student) to determine for him or herself the level and extent of openness
and choice of the planning process. Users are able to define various aspects of the planning process,
from setting the goal of the plan, its sub-goals, activities and timeframes to setting reminders,
assessment modes and outcomes. Each of these aspects can either be locked for the students to
whom the plan is assigned (meaning that these aspects are predefined and thus do not enable choice
of options), or various options can be enabled for the students to choose from. The image and
experience of unlocking options (particularly the more central planning options) illustrate the profound
possibilities that SRPL harbors for enhancing intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. Naturally, in
more formal learning environments, the more significant elements of planning (setting the goal) will
most likely be locked for the students, however, with the gradual use of the planning tool, which initself promotes awareness to the possibilities of openness, more and more aspects of the planning
process can be open to the definition and choice of each individual student, thus promoting the
personalization of learning.
The Application of SRPL and iClass underscores as well the reflection processes on all aspects of
the learning process. Students should be methodically encouraged to ask themselves why they have
chosen this or that option, or performed this or that activity, and indicate to themselves how their
choice relates to their interests, preferences and identity as a whole. Journal writing is therefore
6
Paris & Paris (2001) assert that when SRL per se is experienced as a developmental process that emerges from the
individual’s experiences rather than in a top-down teacher-centered pedagogy, it supports the development of the
individual’s identity as an LLLer who not only acquires skills, but also has the motivational drive to persist in learning and to
develop whatever skills and attitudes needed for supporting her identity as an intrinsically motivated learner).
7
The open-endedness of a learning process correlates to the level at which the goal of the learning process (e.g. the
subject matter to be known by the student, or skills she has to acquire, etc.) is undefined or known to the teacher or the
learner in advance. Thus, in open-ended processes the end result is not important or even known—the emphasis is on the
process, as long as it is driven by curiosity and a strive for meaning. In cases when the goal is predefined but there are
openings for some unexpected modifications of the goal, some level of open-endedness exists.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
11
deeply encouraged in both SRPL and iClass in order that students will learn not only about how they
learn, but also about themselves. Nevertheless, in SRPL, these reflection processes, in which the
learner takes a step back from their learning performance, go hand in hand with exploration and
experimentation processes, in which students can readily develop and expand their interests via
explorative endeavors. Thus, SRPL opts for an ongoing movement between reflection and
exploration so that the one does not inhibit the other.
9 Conclusion
The iClass model centers on learning how to learn. It offers the necessary tools to prepare young and
old learners alike (as well as organizations and SMEs), to make the right choices for themselves by
clarifying to themselves what they need and who they are via strategic planning processes as well as
reflective processes of self-understanding respectively. Moreover, it provides useful guidelines and
methodologies for creating a real change in today’s school systems. The model specifically centers
on the need for personalized education in which learners tailor the learning process to their interest,
needs, and abilities. The basic premise of iClass is that the three central mutually-supportive pillars of
personalization, self-regulation and intrinsic motivation combined, create not only a learning
environment which supports the development of autonomous individuals who are well prepared to
deal with the needs of today’s social and economic realities, but more importantly, enhance individual
well-being. We are well aware that the proof of the model lies in the usability of the platform’s
envelope methodologies as well as in the actual results of their implementation in schools. Based,
among else, on the results of the evaluation process (which was carried out according to the
evaluation methodology; see Aviram et al., 2007b, section 5 - the details of which exceed the scope
of this article), we have taken meaningful steps and will continue to refine and further operationalize
them on these two levels.
References
Abbott, J. & Ryan, T. (2001). The Unfinished Revolution: Learning, Human Behavior, Community, and Political
Paradox, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Anderman, L. H. (2004). Student motivation across subject-area domains. Journal of Educational Research,
97(6), 283–285.
Assor, A. (2008) Growth-promoting school: A school that satisfies psychological needs and promotes listening
to the self and to others. In A. Aviram (ed.) The Futuristic School, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (forthcoming).
Assor, A. & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support: Five important ways to enhance or
undermine students’ experience of autonomy in learning. In: A. Effklides, J., Kuhl & R. Sorrentino (Eds) Trends
and prospects in motivation research, Boston: Kluwer, 101-120.
Aviram, A., Ronen, Y., Somekh, S., Schellas, Y., Dotan, I. & Winer A. (2007a). iClass Pedagogical Model and
Guidelines, Deliverable 3.1 of iClass project, supported by the European Commission FP6 (Contract IST2.3.2.12-507922).
Aviram, A., Winer A., Somekh, S., Schellas, Y., Dotan, I. &. Ronen, Y. (2007b). iClass Pedagogical Model and
Guidelines, Deliverable 3.1 of iClass project, supported by the European Commission FP6 (Contract IST2.3.2.12-507922).
Aviram, A. (2000). ICT and Education: From ‘Computers in the Classroom’ to Critical Adaptation of Educational
Systems to the Emerging Cyber Culture. Journal of Educational Change 1 (4), pp. 331-352.
Aviram, A. (2002). Will Education Succeed in Taming ICT?. In Sancho, J. (ed) Proceedings of the II European
Conference on Information Technologies in Education and Citizenship: A Critical Insight, Barcelona, June 2628, 2002.
Aviram, A. (2007). Navigating through the Storm: Education in Postmodern Democratic Society, Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers (forthcoming).
Aviram, A. (2008). The Futuristic School, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (forthcoming).
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using Hypermedia as a Metacognitive Tool for Enhancing Student Learning? The Role of
Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 40 (4), 199-209.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
12
Boekaerts, M. & Boscolo, P (2002). Interest in learning, learning to be interested, Learning and Instruction, 12,
375-382.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-Regulated Learning: A New Concept Embraced by Researchers, Policy Makers,
Educators, Teachers, and Students, Learning and Instruction, 7 (2), 161-186.
Butler, D. L. & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis, Review of
Educational Research, 65 (3), 245-281.
Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualizing Instruction in Self-Regulated Learning, Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 81-92.
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, et al. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. London: Learning and
Skills Research Centre.
Corno L. & Snow E. (1986). Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences among Learners. In Wittrock M. (ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching, New-York: Macmillan, 605-29.
Cronbach L. & Snow R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook of Research on Interactions,
Inrington Publishers.
Cunningham, I. (1999). The Wisdom of Strategic Learning: The Self Managed Learning Solution, Gower
Publishing.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier
(Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation,. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 237-288.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.) Efficacy,
agency, and self-esteem, New York: Plenum, 31-49.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination
theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post Capitalist Society, New York: HarperBusiness.
Dunn, K. & Dunn, R. (1987). Dispelling outmoded beliefs about student learning. Educational Leadership, 44
(6), 55-63.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis, New York: Norton.
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T.J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ approaches to learning from case-based
instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (3), 719-752.
Flum, H. & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory Orientation as an Educational Goal, Educational Psychologist, 41 (2),
99-110.
Fok, A.W.P, & Ip, H.S.S (2004), Personalized Education (PE) – An Exploratory Study of Learning Pedagogies in
Relation to Personalization Technologies, In W. Liu, Y. Shi and Q. Li (eds.) Advances in Web-Based Learning.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3143, Springer, Berlin, 407-415
Fullan, M (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (Fourth Edition), Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
Gardner, H. (2004). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple intelligences, New York: Basic Books.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family. In J. E. Grusec & L.
Kuczynski (Eds) Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory, New
York: Wiley, 135-161.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers Changing Time: Teachers Work and Culture in the Postmodern
Age, London: Cassel.
Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the Effects of Schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36 (1), 5-13.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
13
Hayamizu, T. (1997). Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Examination of reasons for academic study
based on the theory of internalization, Japanese Psychological Research, 39, 98-108.
Hernandez, F. & Goodson, I. F. (2004) (eds.) Social Geographies of Educational Change, London: Kluwer.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning, Review of Educational Research,
60 (4), 549-571.
Holt, J. C. (1965). How Children Fail?, Dell.
Holt, J. C. (1970) How Children Learn?, Delacorte.
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), retrieved from: http://www.psych.rochester.educ/SDT/index.html
Katz, I. & Assor, A. (2003). The effect of autonomy support on intrinsic motivation in Jewish and Bedouin
children: The meaning of autonomy in different cultures, presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Research on Child Development (SRCD), Tampa: Florida.
Katz, I. & Assor, A. (2006) When Choice Motivates and When It Does Not, Educational Psychology Review, 19
(4).
Katz, I. et al. (2006). Interest as a motivational resource: Feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the
difference. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 27-42.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: raising the scores, ruining the schools, Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Kroger, J. (2000). Identity development: Adolescence through adulthood, Sage Publications Inc.
Lumsden, J. (1999). Language acquisition and creolization. In DeGraff, M. (Ed.) Language creation and
language change, MA: MIT Press, 129-57.
Lumsden, L. (1994). Student Motivation to Learn. Emergency Librarian, 22 (2), 31-32.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S.,
Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L. andOrlofsky, J. L. (Eds), Ego Identity: A Handbook for Psychosocial Research,
New York: Springer-Verlag, 3–41
Nix, G., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of
autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
35, 266-284.
Omer, S. (2001) Implementation of the model for "parental presence" for the "teacher’s presence", (MA thesis,
Tel Aviv University, Hebrew).
Paris, S. G. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning,
Educational Psychologist, 36 (2), 89-101.
Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. (2004). The Turtle Stands on the Basis of an Emerging Educational Paradigm. In
Aviram, A. & Richardson J. (Eds.), Upon What Does the Turtle Stand? Rethinking Education for the Digital Age,
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 53-68.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools: Better Thinking and Learning for Every Child, New York: The Free Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation, San Diego: Academic, 451-502.
Rafoth, M., Leal, L., and DeFabo, L. (1993). Strategies for Learning and remembering: study skills across the
curriculum. An NEA Professional Library Publication.: Analysis and Action Series.
Reeve, J., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for
understanding socio-cultural influences on student motivation. In S. Van Etten & M. Pressley (Eds) Big Theories
Revisited, Greenwich CT: Information Age Press, 31-60.
Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L. & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and
mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction, 12, 467-490.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
14
Riley-Doucet, C. & Wilson, S. (1997). A three-step method of self-reflection using reflective journal writing.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25 (5), 964-968.
Ryan & Deci’s SRL Questionnaires, retrieved from: http://www.psych.rochester.educ/SDT/index.html
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social
development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.) Annual Review of Psychology, 52, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.,
141-166.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective
on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.) Handbook on self & identity,
New York: The Guillford Press, 253-274.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of
authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole & T. Pyszczynski (Eds) Handbook of
experimental existential psychology, New York, Guilford Press, 449-479.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to
development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D, J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology:
Theory and methods, New York: Wiley, 618-655.
Ryan, R. M. & Lynch, M. F. (2003). Philosophies of motivation and classroom management. In R. Curren (Ed)
Blackwell Companions to Philosophy: A companion to the philosophy of education, New York: Blackwell, 260271.
Sarason, S. B. (1982). The Culture of School and the Problem of Change (2nd edition), Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course before It's Too
Late?, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Saylor, C. R. (1990). Reflection and professional education: Art, science, and competency. Nurse Educator, 15
(2), 8-11.
Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st Century: Leadership Imperatives for Educational Reform, JosseyBass.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, London: Random
House.
Sennett, R. (1980). Authority, Canada: Random House.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in
the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a best-evidence
synthesis. Review of educational Research, 57 (3), 293-336.
Stark, S. (1994). A nurse tutor's experience of personal and professional growth through action research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 579-584.
Tanaka, K. & Yamauchi, H. (2000). Influence of autonomy on perceived control beliefs and self-regulated
learning in Japanese undergraduate students, North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 255-272.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, Prior Knowledge, and Learning. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 37-54.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock, Random House.
UK Department for Education and Skills (2006) 2020 Vision: Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020
Review Group.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.)
Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, San Diego: Academic Press, 271-360.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
15
Waldeck, J. H. (2006). What Does “Personalized Education” Mean for Faculty, and How Should It Serve Our
Students?. Communication Education, 55 (3), 345-352.
Waterman, A. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a
review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341-358.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Hattie, J. A., Parr, J. M., Townsend, M. A. R., Thrupp, M., Lauder, H., & Robinson, T. (1999).
Influence of peer effects on learning outcomes: A review of the literature. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Yamauchi, H. & Tanaka, K. (1998). Relations of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs and self-regulated learning
among Japanese children, Psychological Reports, 82, 803-816.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In
D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational
applications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. (2001) Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and
analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1-37.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Tsikalas, K. E (2005). Can Computer-Based Learning Environments (CBLEs) Be Used as
Self-Regulatory Tools to Enhance Learning?. Educational Psychologist, 40 (4), 267–271.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 64-72.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
16
Authors
Prof. Aharon (Roni) Aviram
Chair, Center for Futurism in Education
Ben-Gurion University in the Negev
[email protected]
Yael Ronen
Researcher
Ben-Gurion University in the Negev
[email protected]
Smadar Somekh
Researcher
Ben-Gurion University in the Negev
[email protected]
Amir Winer
Head of Research and Development
Ben-Gurion University in the Negev
[email protected]
Dr. Ariel Sarid
Project Manager and Researcher
Ben-Gurion University in the Negev
[email protected]
Copyrights
The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. They
may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes
them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full
licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
Edition and production
Name of the publication: eLearning Papers
ISSN: 1887-1542
Publisher: elearningeuropa.info
Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L.
Postal address: C/ Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona, Spain
Telephone: +34 933 670 400
Email: [email protected]
Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu •
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
17