Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Comparing students’ self-discipline and self-regulation measures and their prediction of academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004
In this article Kitsantas and Zimmerman seek to compare the influence of self-regulation (SR) and self-discipline (SD) levels in predicting achievement. The two strands of research are described, in some detail, noting various areas of overlap. Numerous measures are discussed for each strand (SR and SD). Several measures are then employed to form a composite measure of SD and SR for each participant. The participants were high school students on the East Coast (n=507). Research methods used in building the two composites are described in detail, as are the various instruments used to form the composites. SR was shown to be a stronger predictor of achievement than SD. This contradicted previous literature, but these results must be accepted cautiously as there were several limitations to the composites used to collect data.
This study in judiciously thorough in its methodology. Since several instruments are employed, descriptions of the strengths and weaknesses of each begin are included. Of note, the well-established Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et al., 1993) is critiqued in detail, with several weaknesses argued. A second item of note, is the reasoning for not using real-time data collection measures (think-aloud, trace logs and structured diaries). This decision was made because the instrument used to measure SD did not include these data and would complicate the goal of creating comparable composites. The methods employed to build the composites are well-detailed but quite complex and might be explained with greater clarity.
This article distinguishes further the constructs associated with SRL. As described in the review of literature, SD characteristics are often grouped with SRL constructs, when they are actually two distinct fields of study. A helpful aspect of this article is that clarification, along with a concise review of literature concerning SD. Anecdotally, the use of the term self-discipline is justified in terms of its history in the literature, and is hence abbreviated SD, however, this might prove confusing to readers since SD also brings to mind self-determination.
Kitsantas, A., & Dabbagh, N. (c2010.). Learning to learn with integrative learning technologies (ILT) : a practical guide for academic success. Charlotte, NC : Information Age Pub.,.
In this text, Kitsantas and Dabbagh explore applications of self-regulated learning in online and blended environments. I’ll address the first chapter. This chapter is a summary of SRL constructs, a description of Zimmerman’s three-phase conceptual model of SRL, and defines role of the instructor in supporting and developing self-regulation in learners. The chapter also outlines the usefulness of technology in supporting self-regulation. The remainder of the text devotes a chapter to this technology integration applied to each construct.
The chapter is a strong, concise summary of the field of study. One key feature is a table of the constructs with definitions, characteristics of high and low-achieving students, and suggestions proposed for support. The prospects of future technology utilization are well-described. I also think this will provide a practical set of tools that I can use to help our health professions faculty directly in developing SRL skills in their students.
It’s exciting to me to finally receive this text from the library, since it is directly concerned with technology and SRL. While I have found numerous disparate articles addressing these two domains, I am hoping that this will provide a broader holistic, view of research on the integration of these specific topics. The only drawback of this text is that it is becoming a bit dated at eight years old. However, I don’t think this will pose an issue as any conceptual findings can be adapted to current technologies – the platforms have not changed that greatly.
Moos, D. C. (2018). Using self-regulation principles as a guide for effective implementation. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed., pp. 243–253). New York: Routledge.
This article takes the approach of viewing SRL, time through the lens of classroom technology use. The article first addresses the SRL foundations of Information Processing Theory (IPT) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). The common SRL data collection technique of using varied traces is described with several examples. For example, common forms of trace data include think-aloud and log analysis. Implications of SRL use in the flipped classroom are examined. Since so much more rich content is being assigned as self-study, various technological prompts are shown to be effective to encourage self-regulation in these environments. However, static prompts are seen as a first step in a progression to a more developed, personalized environment.
While I have seen Bandura and SCT mentioned often in reference to self-efficacy, I have not seen Information Processing Theory mentioned as a key component SRL background. Additionally, this is the first time I have seen flipped classroom mentioned in the SRL literature. The discussion of prompts and their role in static content delivery is contemporary and practical.
I found this article directly applicable to my work, as I create online modules for faculty helping them create the same. The software we use has affordances for these types of prompts, but often I feel it would be helpful to know when and where to place prompts of differing types. This article provided a useful bridge to connect the SRL research I have been reading, with my day-to-day work environment.