Future Learning 1 (2013) 55-59
DOI:
55
Demystifying self-regulated learning
Giuliana Dettori
Institute for Educational Technology, National Research Council, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
This paper argues that self-regulation is an essential competence that all learners should
develop, not only to successfully deal with the challenges and exploit the benefits of the
current cultural and technological context, but also to go successfully though formal
education and develop their own learning and intellectual potential. The paper also claims
that its implementation is not so difficult and demanding as the complexity of its theoretical
framework might induce one to think.
Keywords: self-regulated learning, life-long learning, knowledge society, open educational
resources.
1. Introduction
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) -an individual’s active and conscious control of
his/her own learning activity- is a rather intuitive concept but is difficult to formalize
in simple way because of its multifaceted and compound nature, which includes many
different, equally important, aspects intertwined with each other.
This field of study has been very active in the past couple of decades, giving rise
to several theoretical approaches to its investigation (see e.g. Boekaerts, Pintrich &
Zeidner, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001), as well as to a large amount of literature
on all aspects involved: from characterizing SRL from the point of view of different
learning theories (Zimmerman, 2001), to integrating it into academic learning
(Zimmerman, 2002; Bembenutty, 2011; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011), to deepening
some of its aspects (e.g. Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008; Hacker, Dunlosky & Graesser,
2009; Salatas-Waters & Schneider, 2010), and to investigating the possible support to
its development provided by technology-enhanced learning environments (Dettori &
Persico, 2011).
Despite the amount of positive outcomes and methodological suggestions widely
reported in the literature, SRL is not yet explicitly given full attention in formal
education, at both teaching, tool creation and policy level. This is the case in most
countries, apart few, laudable exceptions (e.g. Singapore, see Koh & Looi, 2012).
This paper aims to contribute to change this contextual situation by calling
attention on the crucial role that SRL has to play in the improvement of learning at all
levels (Section 2), as well as on the fact that its implementation in school is not so
difficult and demanding as the complexity of its theoretical framework might induce
one to think (Section 3).
© Baltzer Science Publishers
56
G. Dettori / Demystifying self-regulated learning
2. Why SRL?
It is widely recognized that the knowledge turn in technology and society and the
diffusion of networked communication have altered, and keep altering, the contexts in
which we live and operate, creating both needs and opportunities for learning. This
constitutes an “inescapable framework” which affects everybody, including people
who are not directly involved in the knowledge society (Jensen et al, 2012).
This very fluid situation obviously induces the need, at least for the (active or
potential) work force, to constantly get informed on new tools, issues and problems,
hence necessarily learning much beyond formal education, taking part in the
phenomenon which is widely known as life-long learning (Jarvis, 2010).
Knowledge diffusion and widespread connections at the same time provide
formidable opportunities to autonomously foster and shape one’s own competence
updating, especially thanks to the large availability of Open Educational Resources
(OERs) of the most diverse kinds, from tutorial-like presentations, to collections of
exercises and learning tasks and up to entire courses. A great advantage of OERs, with
respect to many other resources displayed on the Internet, is that they are usually
supplied or supported by reliable providers (universities, learning centers, experienced
teachers) and are therefore more likely than others to meet some quality standard,
which makes them an appealing opportunity both for independent study and as
integrations to formal offers. Therefore, the diffusion of OERs is often deemed a
crucial asset to improve future learning.
But are potential learners actually able to take advantage of such opportunities?
A positive answer to this question cannot be taken for granted - unless learners are
able to self-regulate!
How can we create the conditions for this to be the case? The literature shows
that the acquisition of self-regulation competence is neither automatic nor fast, but
requires suitable teaching and practice (Boekaerts, 1997). This competence is partially
dependent on the learning content and situation, which means that it cannot be taught
in a single occasion but can only be fostered by repeatedly practicing it in a variety of
contexts and in relation to different subjects and tasks. The good news is that selfregulation, and in particular its self-awareness component -metacognition- is
accessible to children from early school years, including those with learning
difficulties (Larkin, 2010) and can profitably be included in classroom instruction
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998).
Developing healthy self-regulation habits in school can be useful as much as
learning to read, write and compute - people are going to need it throughout life, no
matter what their occupation will be. But should we consider it just as a useful
competence to acquire during formal education, or does it also have some positive
influence on school learning itself? Positive effects of self-regulation on the learning
of almost all school subjects are highlighted by numerous authors (see all SRL-related
citations above). I would like, here, to point out yet another positive side-effect which
is not so widely analysed in the literature.
In a classical book on the nature of intelligence, Resnik & Glazer (1976) argue
that “intelligence is the ability to learn on one's own in the absence of direct or
G. Dettori / Demystifying self-regulated learning
57
complete instruction” (p. 206). This definition suggests that fostering learners’ selfregulation is a good way to foster their mental development. Intelligence development,
on the other hand, is claimed by Bruner (1979), in a reflection on Dewey’s work, to be
a fundamental aim of school education: “Education seeks to develop the power and
sensibility of mind ... [it] transmits to the individual some part of the accumulation of
knowledge style and values that constitutes the culture of a people ... but education
must also seek to develop the process of intelligence so that the individual is capable
of going beyond the cultural ways of his social world, able to innovate in however
modest a way ...” (p. 115-116). In this perspective, SRL, which is crucial to enable
learners to “learn in absence of direct or complete instruction”, appears pivotal to
develop intelligence, and by this means contribute to fulfill the ultimate aim of
education. For this reason, I claim that it should have much wider attention than it is
currently receiving, from both educators and policy makers, at all levels of formal
instruction.
3. A closer look to SRL
What could have hindered a wider implementation of SRL in education,
considering the great advantages it appears to bring about? We must acknowledge
generalized difficulties and delays in the practical application of many research results
in education. In the case of SRL, the situation is likely made more complicated by the
fact that the literature offers more than one model of its components and their
interrelations, which may result disorienting even for the most willing teachers keen to
foster their students’ development, at least for the reasons that one may wonder where
to start from and may be afraid to engage in demanding and rigid activities.
A closer analysis of different SRL models, however, shows that there is no actual
contradiction among them: all of them are simply trying to describe in linear way a
multifaceted, compound and intrinsically non-linear concept and chose different ways
to highlight and group its components, but in the end all of them characterize SRL in
equivalent ways.
So, let me dare to offer my humble contribution to demystifying SRL by
proposing a (hopefully!) simpler way to group its characterizing elements: awareness,
strategic action, motivation.
Awareness concerns personal learning aims, beliefs, knowledge, needs and
achievements. It can be fostered by comparison (with peers or given models) and
consequent self-reflection (see, for instance, Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Hacker et
al., 2009; Larkin, 2010; Dettori, 2011; Dettori & Lupi, 2013).
Strategies constitute the core of self-regulated action; they are necessary in
learning as much as in any other kind of activity, to make sure to move towards
achieving the expected outcomes rather than hoping to find them by chance; they are
part of the practice of good problem solvers, anyway, and widely applied in education.
Strategic action can be fostered by explaining its importance and encouraging strategy
application, adaptation and finally creation (see, for instance, Hofer et al., 1998;
Salatas-Waters & Schneider, 2010; Oxford, 2011).
58
G. Dettori / Demystifying self-regulated learning
Motivation concerns the processes that learners use to sustain their functioning
on the behavioural level as well as on the mental and emotional ones. It is what fuels a
careful engagement in learning activities, and is therefore an essential dimension of
SRL (e.g. Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008).
An important point that emerges from the analysis of the literature is that a
teacher aiming to foster her/his students’ SRL does not need to address all possible
aspects of SRL in each activity; calling attention and encouraging action, each time,
on one aspect or the other is sufficient to help develop good learning habits in the long
run, through repeated and varied practice.
4. Concluding reflection
The future of learning (if we want learning to have a bright future) passes
through the development of learner’s self-regulation. The literature of the past couple
of decades has provided a wealth of studies which, all together, have deeply analysed
this construct in all its aspects, providing a rich, compound and detailed picture: an
extremely valuable contribution to address learning improvement by fostering
learners’ self-regulation, but at the same time a rather intimidating and slightly
abstract one. We need to demystify self-regulated learning by developing simple and
concrete guidelines for its implementation, so as to raise learners able to successfully
cope with the demands of both formal education and life-long learning in the dynamic
context of knowledge society.
References
Bembenutty, H. (Ed.) (2011). Self-regulated Learning (Special issue). New directions for Teaching an
Learning, 126(Summer 2011).
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.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. New York,
Academic Press.
Bruner, J. (1979). After John Dewey, what? In J. Bruner, On Knowing: essays for the left hand (pp. 113130). Oxford: Oxford University press.
Dettori, G. (2011). Online sharing of written narrations to gain awareness of personal beliefs. Workshop
Hypertext and narrative within the ACM International conference Hypertext 2011, June 6–9, 2011,
Eindhoven, NL.
Dettori, G. & Persico, D. (2011). Fostering Self-regulated learning through ICTs. Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Dettori, G. & Lupi, V. (2013). Self-observation and shared reflection to improve pronunciation in L2. In
R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning
Technologies (pp. 615-625). Berlin: Springer.
Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Metacognition in education.
New York and London: Routledge.
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L. & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners. In
B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (p. 5785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jarvis, P. (2010). The Routledge International Handbook of Lifelong Learning. New York and London:
Routledge.
G. Dettori / Demystifying self-regulated learning
59
Jensen, K., Lahn, L. C. & Nerland, M. (2012). Professional learning in the knowledge society.
Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Koh, E. and Looi, C.K. (2012). An implementation of smartphone-enabled seamless learning: A snapshot
perspective. Paper presented at 20th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE
2012), Singapore, 26–30 Nov. 2012. http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/handle/10497/5498
Larkin, S. (2010). Metacognition in young children. New York and London: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:
Pearson/Longman.
Resnick, L. B. & Glazer, R. (1976). Problem solving and intelligence. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature
of intelligence (pp. 205-230). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Salatas-Waters, H. & Schneider, W. (Eds.) (2010). Metacognition, strategy use and instruction. New
York and London: Guilford Press.
Schunk, D.H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Self-regulated learning, from teaching to self-reflective
practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Schunk, D.H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning. New York &
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and
analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement (p.1-37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2),
64-70.
Zimmerman, B. J. &. Schunk, D. H (Eds.) (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. &. Schunk, D. H (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of Learning and
Performance. New York and London: Routledge.