Self-Regulated Learning

As stated by Dale Shunk in his 2005 aritcle on Paul Pintrich, "Motivated students are more likely to engage in learning activities, expend effort, persist when tasks are difficult, and achieve at high levels." (p. 86). This is the crux of competency 8 and was the focus for my design of the Museum Exhibit project for my grade 8 Social Studies classes. What I sought was to encourage students to push beyond surface level understanding by allowing them creative freedom within their task. While many students started begrudgingly, seeing the multiple questions and elements required as daunting, it was not long before they began to see how they could have fun with this assignment. 

In consideration of Competency 7: "Take into account student diversity", I offered tiered guiding question complexity (a strategy borrowed from my Associate Teacher). These differing "Spice" levels allow students to engage with the material to the depth that they are comfortable with and allow them to foster a sense of self-efficacy without feeling overwhelmed by more challenging connections. Interestingly, a phenomenon that Pintrich and Shunk likely would have predicted was observed: students that had, in the past, answers exclusively "mild" questions began to elaborate and respond to "medium" or "spicy" questions. A clear correlation became evident in which students began challenging themselves as they became more enthusiastic about the project and its creative elements. When students began to visualise presentations that sparked their enthusiasm, they became more willing to engage with the content in greater depth. The intrinsic motivation fostered by creative freedom imbued the project with a sense of value for students (Shunk, p. 85) and encouraged them to employ learning strategies (specifically research skills) more effectively. I also offered a template with the simplest version of the project, taking into consideration the additional guidance some students may require. In consideration of Competency 7, I took into account that some students would be more comfortable with a clear and simple structure for their projects. This helped students struggling in literacy or complex thinking to have a direction and be able to focus on their research and areas of interest rather than the creative presentation of their projects. To my pleasant surprise, those students found it a relief to have a structure to follow and were more confident in delving into spicier question without the stress of having to come up with a presentation style. 

Furthermore, the structure of this booklet (which was created in a similar format to projects the students had done earlier in the term) was designed to support students through the first of the four phases of Pintrich's SRL model: Forethought, planning, and activation. My original rationale for this setup was to ensure that the task did not become overwhelming to students, allowing them to break it down one step at a time before putting together their exhibits. This gave them the opportunity to aply learning strategies and bolster their autonomy, as described in Competency 8. What I did not account for, but Pintrich would likely have anticipated, was that many students did not find their "spark" towards the project until they began planning it. By giving them space to be intentional about how they would communicate the knowledge the had aquired, I inadvertently opened the door for them to be inspired and thereby motivated to create unique and creative exhibits. 

In designing this task, my personal guiding question was "how do I get students to care about this?" Having Pintrich's theory of self-regulated learning in my arsenal helped inform the answer. My goal therefore became to give students a level of autonomy in their approaches to the task. The challenge was to include the required curricular benchmarks while maintaining creative opportunities. This balance of student self-regulation and standardized assessment is one that came up multiple times throughout the 6-week practicum and undoubtedly limits teachers' ability to fully integrate theories such as Pintrich's into the current public education model.