“Self-regulation of self-efficacy and Attributions in Academic settings

Schunk, D. & Zimmerman, B. Self-Regulation & Learning Performing Issues and Educational Applications, “Self-regulation of self-efficacy and Attributions in Academic settings”, 1994, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey,

This chapter focuses on defining and differentiating between the two terms. Self-regulation has two types of motives, self-efficacy and attributions. Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief about their capabilities to learn. Attribution refers to beliefs concerning causes of the outcomes of learning. The study discusses a theoretical approach based on social cognitive theory.
The chapter discusses and researches student’s ability to regulate themselves. There are three primary factors involved in this; self-observation, self-judgment and self-reaction. The study finds that students show most improvement in their academic performance when they observe their own study habits, and have been provided clear performance goals that they can use to guide their progress. Student’s self-reactions tie into motivation when they evaluate themselves and their need for improvement. Most of the time, they will reward themselves tangible, purchasing something or giving a break from work, when they see improvement.
The research study used four different methods of feedback to monitor student’s self-efficacy and attributions. While working in small groups, teachers would provide feedback to students regarding their performance in the various ways; ability only, effort only, ability plus effort, and none. The findings show that students who received ability plus effort feedback showed the highest self-efficacy. The ability and effort alone showed some self-efficacy, when compared to no feedback. Findings also showed students with highest self-efficacies are more likely to solve problems correctly and spend more time attempting unsolvable problems than students with low self-efficacy. The research shows the correlation between self-efficacy and attribution while they also suggest more longitudal studies are necessary in order to be more valuable.

Final Report: Results from Accessing Curriculum Through Technology Tools (ACTTT), a Model Development Project.

Johanson, J. Clark, L. Daytner, K. and Robinson, L. (2009). Final Report: Results from Accessing Curriculum Through Technology Tools (ACTTT), a Model Development Project. Retrieved from ERIC (ED504739).

Summary/Analysis

This article reports a study that was conducted in Canton, Illinois. The Center for Best Practices in Early Childhood, a research and development unit within the College of Education and Human Services at Western Illinois University. The center used a model development project called Accessing Curriculum through Technology Tools (ACTTT). The main goal of the ACTTT was to demonstrate and evaluate a technology model for students with disabilities in primary elementary school classrooms (K-2) and have all be successful in the general curriculum. The technology tools used in ACTTT included hardware, such as computers, digital cameras, digital microscopes, video cameras, printers, scanners and adaptive devices; software used for writing, graphing, mapping, authoring, graphics, and concept development; and the Internet. The six objectives that guided the development and testing of the project were to develop, test, and demonstrate the ACTTT model in randomly-selected classrooms, provide training on the ACTTT model to site teachers, collect data on participating children and teachers, provide information to families, to develop ACTTT products based on tested classroom technology-based activities, and to disseminate information about ACTTT.

The amount of technology used in these elementary school classrooms were fantastic. I know as kindergarten teacher I would love the training and support that the teachers received to assist their students with learning how to use different technology tools. One strength of the project was the realistic expectations of the researchers. They set goals for students to learn and use the technology tool with success that were not unreasonable. All teachers and principles saw positive results from the study.

Relevant Quotes/Concepts

“Both literature and practice point to the important benefits of integrating technology into the K-2 curriculum. A single computer can be used by an individual child, two or three children, or a

larger group of children, thereby leading to increased positive social interactions. Adding technology tool applications to an array of children's educational experiences enhances access, learning, attention, communication, and social skills.” (4)

“Using a computer and appropriate software can help children develop critical thinking,

problem solving, creativity, and mathematical thinking.” (5)

“Technologies can assist children with moderate to severe disabilities function in inclusive settings and hold a key to promote active learning skills rather than passive attendance or absorption of knowledge.” (6)

“Technologies can assist children with moderate to severe disabilities function in inclusive settings and hold a key to promote active learning skills rather than passive attendance or absorption of knowledge.” (6)

Text Sources

Clements, D. H. (1999a). The effective use of computers with young children. In J. V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years. Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.

Clements, D. H. (1999b). Young children and technology. In Dialogue on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061.

Retrieved October 14, 2005, from the World Wide Web: www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/online/experience/clements.htm

Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1997). Technology for students with learning disabilities: Educational applications. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Lewis, R., Graves, A., Ashton, T., & Kieley, C. (1998). Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(2), 95-108.