1. Self-regulation and Learning:Gifted Pedagogy, Classroom Environments, and Students Angela M. Housand University of North Carolina, Wilmington Presentation at the University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL
10. The Enrichment Triad Model Type II Group Training Activities Type I General Exploratory Activities Type III Individual & Small Group Investigations of Real Problems Regular Classroom Environment in General (Renzulli, 1977)
11. SEM-R An enrichment-based reading program Designed to increase: Reading achievement for all students Enjoyment of reading Self-regulation in reading
12. Components of the SEM-R Framework Increasing degree of student selection (Joyful Reading – p. 9)
14. SEM-R: Year 1 Implemented as an after school program Two schools Grades 3-6 n= 229 J = 14
15. Results: Year 1 Used ANCOVA Statistically significant differences between treatment and control favoring treatment on both reading comprehension and fluency No interaction effects
16. SEM-R: Year 2 Implemented as partial replacement of regular basal reading program Two schools Grades 3-5 n= 558 J = 31
17. Results: Year 2 Used ANCOVA Statistically significant differences between treatment and control favoring treatment on both reading comprehension and fluency Difference largely explained by the urban school
18. SEM-R: Year 3 Implemented as partial replacement of regular basal reading program Five schools Grades 3-5 n= 1057 J = 47
19. Results: Year 3 No statistically significant differences found between treatment and control SEM-R replaced one hour of regular reading instruction without negative impact Regression to the mean?
20. Self-Regulation and SEM-R Choice in activities Opportunity for help seeking Student participation in evaluation Complex tasks Choice of book Individualized conferences Student participation in assessment Phase III activities
21. Sample Year 4 Grades 2-5(n= 1252; J = 71)Demographics: Percentages by School
29. Methodology: Missing Data Attrition (n = 115) Pattern of missingness assessed in NORM Remaining missingness: MAR 10 imputed data sets using NORM “Average” set used for HLM (NORM, Schafer, 1999; HLM6, Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheoun, Congdon, & Toit,2004)
30. 240 Observations Conducted Range = 1 to 8 per classroom Over the course of 1 Academic Year Methodology: Observations
31.
32. Research Question 1 What are the effects of individual factors on individual self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use?
33. Results: Random Effects Significant between class variation remained to be explained: (00 = .040, 269 = 162.17, p .001) Intra-class correlation: 7% of variance between class
34. Results: Random Coefficients Female not significant predictor Pre-Achievement (20 = .045, t69 = 1.95, p = .054) Teacher Observations of SRL Strategy Use (30 = .055, t1247 = 2.75, p = .007) Pre-SRL Strategy Use (40 = .665, t69 = 24.53, p .001)
35. Results: Random Coefficients Within class variability reduced by 44.1% Between class variability reduced by 67.5% Significant between class variation remained to be explained: (00 = .011, 269 = 110.53, p = .001)
36. Results: Contextual Grade not a significant predictor of SRL strategy use 7.7% of the between class variability is explained by grade. 16.7 % of the effect of pre-achievement is explained by grade. None of the effect of pre-SRL strategy use is explained by grade.
37.
38.
39.
40. Do the real changes occur at major transitions?
43. Results: Variance Explained 44.9% of between class variance is explained by individual factors and teacher observations of SRL strategy use. No variance between classrooms was explained by treatment.
44. Follow-up Question After controlling for individual factors, how much between class variance in SRL strategy use is explained by the SEM-R treatment condition? Were there treatment by school interaction effects?
45. Results After controlling for individual factors, no effect from treatment. There were no school effects. There were no school by treatment interaction effects.
53. Results: Caution Time as a covariate Wilkes Lambda used for MANOVA tests Inter-Rater reliability (r = .70) on observations scale was not sufficient Results become suggestions for future research rather than valid findings Use Caution!
54. Results: Environment All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions Average of 4 dimensions of Environmental Influence(F(1, 212) = 29.40; p .001; 2 = .122) Choice in Activities (F(1, 212) = 129.55; p .001; 2 = .379) Complex Tasks (F(1, 212) = 16.18; p .001; 2 = .071) Participation in Assessments (F(1, 212) = 19.13; p .001; 2 = .083)
55. Results: Observed Behaviors All Differences Favored Treatment Conditions Average of 4 dimensions of Observed Behaviors (F(1, 212) = 14.99; p .001; 2 = .066) Students are Engaged (F(1, 212) = 33.82; p .001; 2 = .138) Students have autonomy (F(1, 212) = 23.57; p .001; 2 = .100)
56. Results: No Difference Environmental Help Seeking Observed Student Behaviors Solicit Information Seek Help
57.
58. Limitations: Treatment Fidelity Teachers reverting to former classroom practices Whole class novel studies Test Preparation High Stakes Testing Test-Taking Strategies vs. Reading Comprehension Strategies SEM-R Skipped
63. Components of the SEM-R Framework Increasing degree of student selection (Joyful Reading – p. 9)
64. SEM-R Classroom Ongoing formative assessment Responsive to student needs Embedded summative assessments Student participation in assessment Phase 3 Product assessment opportunities Assessment of individualized outcomes
65. I have seen gains in their fluency, comprehension, as well as word skills. It is truly amazing.
66. The one on one five minute conferences are the best way for me to monitor each child’s unique learning needs, and be able to use strategies individually for each student that benefits them the most.
67. I know my students as readers and learners better than I ever have before.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73. SEM-R Classrooms School for students identified as gifted During obariation between gifted classrooms
74.
75. Classroom SRL: High vs. Low Purpose for reading (engaging) Materials to support metacognitive awareness Explicit instruction and modeling of strategies Self-regulatory and comprehension
76. Classroom SRL: High vs. Low Organization of classroom Clear set of expectations Behavioral and performance Participation in assessment
77. “From the standpoint of the child…he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school. That is the isolation of the school - its isolation from life.” John Dewey
78. The Program Elementary – 5th Grade Enrichment pull-out program Environmental science focus Coastal region Nearby lake and stream
96. Connection to Norway Gifted students Advanced contact and planning between instructors Surrounded by similar water bodies Different climate
97. The Researcher 27 visits February through June Exploratory study looking for emerging themes Non-participatory Non-instructional
98. Major Finding #1 Difficulty accessing technology Insufficient access to the internet Too few computers in classroom Inadequate computer hardware and software iPhone used to circumvent school firewall
99. Inadequate technology may have contributed to the failure of effectively creating a dynamic learning community with students’ in Norway.
100. Major Finding #2 Self-advocacy and Self-promotion Certain students emerged as leaders Lead to distractions Impacted access to technology and tools Impacted opportunities to contribute Impacted group assignment
101. Major Finding #3 Differentiated Instruction Instruction varied by learning style, process, and product Almost no whole group instruction Student groups were self-selected Increased student engagement when products and processes were authentic
105. Mission of the Watson School of Education is to prepare quality teachers
106.
107. Future Research:Underlying Constructs Can SRL be studied without controlling for motivation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, metacognitive awareness, etc. ? Other underlying constructs?
110. Special thanks to theSearch Committee! Dr. Judy Giesen, Chair Dr. Sara Childers Dr. Jamie Satcher Dr. Annie Smith Dr. Sara Tomek Dr. Elizabeth Wilson
Notes de l'éditeur
Small to moderateLargesmall
Small to moderateLargesmall
Small to moderateLargesmall
93% of variance within class
Grade: (i.e. being in grade 2,4,or 5)
Treatment did not significantly influence effects on SRL strategy use from level 1 predictors.
Large effect sizeLarge effect sizeModerate effect sizeModerate effect size
