Select Page

de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2017). Bridging Cognitive Load and Self-Regulated Learning Research: A complementary approach to contemporary issues in educational research. Learning and Instruction, 51, 1–9.

This article is the introduction to a special issue of the journal Learning and Instruction, discussing the integration of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and the various frameworks of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL).  The authors argue that the two domains are interconnected and both fields may benefit from work establishing a means of integration.  To that end, both frameworks are summarized.  Next, a pathway for integration is suggested employing the Cue Utilization Framework.  The framework is described in the context of both CLT and SRL.  Each article in the issue is briefly summarized and pathways for future research are suggested.

A strong point of this article is the well-defined, succinct discussion of both CTL and SRL.  These provide relevant context even for those familiar with both frameworks.  The authors also make a strong argument for integration of the two.  An area that might be improved is the description of the Cue Utilization Framework.  As this is the basis for much of the article, the framework’s underpinnings could be better described.  Further examples of cues, what they are, and which types of interventions qualify as ques would help the reader unfamiliar with the framework.

I found this article useful as I am interested and familiar CLT, Sweller, and especially Mayer.  I was intrigued to find this special issue dedicated to combining CLT and SRL – which I am less versed in.  I have retrieved several of the articles in the issue, but am withholding judgment on if I agree with the integration or not.  While I think the idea is sensible, I’d like to see how some of the variables are operationalized and how the theories are integrated conceptually in the other articles of the issue.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2015). Self-Regulated Learning: Theories, Measures, and Outcomes. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 541–546). Oxford: Elsevier.

This article provides a well-referenced overview of the history, development and current research concerns of self-regulated learning.  A useful set of definitions is provided listing common terms found throughout the literature.  This article provides historical context illustrating where SRL is situated among other motivational theories.  Numerous examples of key research are cited for further exploration.

A strong point of this piece is that it fulfills the purpose of an overview for the unfamiliar reader – key findings are listed and described to offer a foothold in the collection of SRL constructs.  Since SRL is not a defined singular theory, but a collection of constructs, the complexity of differing perspectives is addressed.  The article could be improved by providing a list of the key constructs in SRL (e.g. goal level, planning, monitoring, help seeking to name a few).  As it is, the article leaves unaddressed what the major constructs are in an exhaustive or descriptive way.

Historical context described in the article is useful to me in my research.  However, more useful is the reference section, where I gleaned several articles which I’m excited to explore.  In these references, I was able to locate literature listing all key elements of SRL in a tabular format with topic and key researchers.  I also found interesting work by Anastasia Kitsantas, who is mentioned by name in the article and is a frequent co-author with Zimmerman.  As Zimmerman is a key thinker in SRL, it is also a nice introduction to his work.

Kitsantas Anastasia, & Dabbagh Nada. (2011). The role of Web 2.0 technologies in self‐regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(126), 99–106.

This article offers another brief overview of Self-Regulated Learning to begin.  This time the description is a bit clearer than that of Zimmerman above.  Specific features of SRL and the 3-phase cyclical model of forethought, performance and reflection is clarified.  Next, Web 2.0 and its associated tools are defined.  While this article is slightly out of date in terms of specific tools (as might be expected with the rapid pace of change in educational technology), conceptually the classification of tools is still relevant.  Examples of various tools used to enhance self-regulation are provided.

Strengths of this article are its clarity and utility.  Its tone is less academic and more practical, summarizing SRL quickly for the practitioner and providing examples of tools that can be used to encourage SRL in students.  While the particular tools may be less used currently, similar tools can be utilized to achieve the same outcomes.

As I explore SRL further, I think this area of inquiry is particularly interesting.  I am frequently tasked with distilling research into practical recommendations.  This article, and similar that I hope to find over the next few weeks, provide recommendations, based on research, and informed by SRL frameworks.  By exploring these texts, I can provide actionable advice to faculty and administrators.