The notion of self-regulation

Self-regulation has been defined in different ways over the years. Montalvo and Torres (2004) explain that SRL research emerged in the mid-1980s when Zimmerman and Schunk published their series of volumes on SRL. A great deal of research on self-regulation was undertaken and it became one of the most important areas of educational practice. Boekaerts and Corno (2005, p. 200) concluded that over the past 20 years, researchers had “struggled with the conceptualization and operationalization of self-regulatory capacity, coming to the conclusion that there is no simple and straightforward definition of the construct of self-regulation.”

Even though there is widespread agreement that successful and effective learners – of all ages – do self-regulate, theories of self-regulation differ in their descriptions of their various psychological dimensions (summarized in Table 1). Researchers cannot find a common ground as to whether self-regulation is a process or an action (Demetriou, 2000; Pintrich, 2000), an approach (Cohen, 1990), a capacity or ability (Collett, 2014; Lemos, 1999), or a system, which comprises a complex set of factors contributing and influencing self-regulation in learning (Zimmerman, 1989).

Boekaerts and Niemivirta (2000) perceive these differences as something useful, as it is possible to break self-regulation down into manageable units or subsystems in order to make the investigation of the issue more comprehensive. Moreover, it is worth noting that the main components are essentially the same, thus (meta)cognitive, motivational, and behavioral points of view are taken into account in line with the influence of the learning environments.

Models of SRL

Several models of SRL have emerged in the literature over the past 30 years. Each of these models reflects a slightly different theoretical stance and outlines a variety of processes and stages learners go through while being engaged in a learning task (Collett, 2014).

The most widely used one is Zimmerman’s (2000) model. The first version, the Triadic Model of Self-Regulated Learning, which described that the interactions of personal, environmental, and behavioral determinants of SRL was developed in 1989 and has undergone some revisions over the years. In the 2000 version, only the three basic interacting phases of the model were outlined: (a) forethought phase, (b) performance or volitional control phase, and (c) self-reflection phase. The subprocesses belonging to each phase went through some changes, and the model achieved its current form only in 2009.

The current form of the model (Fig. 1) still comprises the three basic phases and their underlying subprocesses, such as self-regulated strategies and tools. The forethought phase is characterized by goal setting and strategic planning and involves all the self-motivation beliefs, such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, task interest/value, and goal orientation, which precede efforts to act and set the stage for learning. The performance phase, occurring during learning efforts, incorporates everything related to self-control, such as the chosen learning strategy, time management, handling stress, environmental structuring, and all the self-observation strategies, which affect attention and performance. Last but not least, the self-reflection phase includes all the strategies of self-judgment (such as self-evaluation and causal attribution) and self-reaction (such as self-satisfaction), which follow the performance efforts and determine the learner’s reaction to the whole experience, which, in turn, influences the subsequent learning efforts (forethought phase), thus completing the self-regulatory cycle.

View Full Size

Zimmerman and Moylan’s Self-Regulation Model (2009, p. 300)

Citation: Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation 3, 2; 10.1556/2059.03.2019.07

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

To sum up, self-regulated learners can be characterized as people who actively, intentionally, and consciously control their learning from a cognitive, motivational, and behavioral point of view (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). How can a teacher become one of them? Many researchers (Gordon, Dembo, & Hocevar, 2007; Randi, 2004) see the expansion of the teacher education’s curricula as a solution and believe that the integration of self-regulatory learning strategies into preservice teachers’ training might influence their instructional strategies. They claim that by teaching preservice teachers how to be more self-regulated, they might be more inclined to foster the development of their students’ SRL later.

Self-regulation and teachers

There are ongoing discussions about what a teacher has to do during an English language lesson in order to contribute to and successfully develop his/her learners’ self-regulation (e.g., Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Carneiro & Veiga Simão, 2011). However, it is still unclear how teachers develop this knowledge and the necessary practical skills. The fact that they have learned to apply self-regulatory skills and modify their own learning accordingly may help them teach the same skills to their students (Dembo, 2001). Six years earlier, Little (1995), who had been one of the first researchers to investigate the parallel between learner and teacher learning, came to the same conclusion as “language teachers are more likely to succeed in promoting learner autonomy if their own education has encouraged them to be autonomous” (p. 180).

According to Butler (2003), teachers’ self-regulation can be dealt with at two levels simultaneously. On one hand, we can think of a teacher as someone self-regulating their learning about teaching, which involves the construction of “new knowledge and beliefs about teaching grounded in their coordination of theoretical frameworks and their reflection on teaching practices” (p. 5). On the other hand, teachers are learning to self-regulate their teaching practices, which are “based on specific goals for their students: teachers construct instructional strategies, enact them in their classrooms, monitor outcomes, and revise instruction accordingly” (p. 5). She notes that when teachers focus on their own learning, they revise their knowledge not just about learning but teaching as well, which, in turn, influences their teaching practice. This definition might suggest that the whole process is perceived as something that happens in a rather individualistic manner, between disconnected individuals in a formal learning environment. However, she argues that the role of collaboration, in other words, the social context, plays an essential role in teachers’ understanding and development of self-regulation. Her assumptions seem to be valid, as goal setting, motivation, and reflection are continually viewed as the stages of SRL, and individuals could benefit from seeing how others have achieved their goals, the steps taken, and their reflections on the whole process. Littlejohn, Milligan, and Margaryan (2012) conducted research on knowledge workers’ personal engagement in learning practices and coined a term for a collaborative mechanism called “charting” by which people self-regulate their learning. Based on this charting process, the authors created the 4C’s framework, which incorporates: consuming, creating, connecting, and contributing:

• – Consuming knowledge and values from sources, which have been already created by others.

• – Creating new knowledge with the help of already existing knowledge, by extending, combining and argumenting.

• – Connecting to others with similar goals and interests. This allows the comparison of an individual’s skills and development with those of his/her peers, and allows the sharing of resources, such as experience and ideas within one’s personal learning network. The peer-support and collaborative research play an important role in developing new knowledge structures.

• – Contributing new knowledge, creating evidence, and publishing results of the research formally and informally, which is relevant to specific tasks and can benefit the whole collective.

This framework represents the key ways and behaviors how individuals interact in their personal learning network, in a working environment. There still remains the question of managing individual learning. One key term is goal setting, which starts with the identification of gaps in knowledge, understanding, and making further research in order to achieve them. These actions are a central part of charting, a process, and organizing principle of one’s SRL.

Teachers as self-regulated learners

As highlighted above, teachers’ adaptability during the lessons is crucial. However, as Dembo (2001) concluded, learning to teach is not enough; teachers have to be self-regulated themselves. As Michalsky and Schechter (2013) similarly stated, teachers’ ability to develop their students’ self-regulation is tied to their own self-regulation. They make a distinction between two perspectives. On one hand, the learner’s perspective in SRL refers to the teacher’s own learning, meaning that teachers need to learn how to learn. Therefore, in order to have autonomous learners, a teacher has to be autonomous on his/her own. Gordon et al.’s (2007) study also revealed that the way teachers learn is an important mediating factor in how they teach. On the other hand, the teacher’s perspective in SRL means that teachers must be able to understand and develop self-regulated skills in their learners.

Efficient and independent learning urges students to use and apply their knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts – school, home, and work – to connect these with their existing knowledge and prior life and learning experiences. For this reason, self-regulation has gained increased attention in the past couple of decades as the skills associated with it “are essential to cope with the challenges posed by our modern society, where knowledge is dynamic, distributed and complex” (Persico, Milligan, & Littlejohn, 2015, p. 2482).

Roles of a teacher

Self-regulation is not an inborn characteristic, but can be developed either by natural means or by formal learning (Holec, 1981). The above-outlined Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2009) model is often used in informal learning environments and focuses on the learning perspectives in SRL. However, English language teachers play an essential role in the incorporation of SRL strategies into the teaching of English, which helps their students construct their own strategies (Pintrich, 1999). The NCC (2012, p. 12) emphasizes the role of the teacher in the teaching of the “ability to pursue and persist in learning, organize one’s own learning, both individually and in groups, including effective management of time and information; to recognize the needs and opportunities and to know the process of learning.” It is apparent that the NCC puts a special emphasis on teaching students how to learn with teachers who play a prominent role in this process. According to Michalsky and Schenter (2013), these roles can be classified into three complementary approches: “(a) the provision of key contextual elements or task conditions that invite SRL; (b) modeling to facilitate movement from emulator (an individual who imitates a more experienced other) to self-regulator (an individual who adapts learning strategies to meet new contextual demands); and (c) direct SRL strategy instruction” (p. 63). The first approach involves the teachers’ role as a facilitator. A teacher gives choices and opportunities for control, is willing to help but encourages collaboration, and is able to accept and respond to learners’ needs. This, however, cannot be achieved without reflection. As Butler (2003) highlighted, both SRL and self-regulated teaching are reflective activities. By constantly reflecting on their classes, teachers can learn a lot about their students and about themselves as well. Lots of people think that reflection means nothing more than just adding a kind of thinking approach to practice. Barry and King (1998) explain the difference very clearly and make a difference between a teacher who “ponders about how well the skill, strategy, lesson, etc. is going or has gone” and compares it to the one who, according to them, is much more of a professional evaluator and “systematically reflects on a lesson” (p. 409). According to Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, and López-Torres (2003), reflection contributes to the development of teaching expertise in the classroom and thus it supports professional development. Reflecting is an important part of not just professional practice (Sparks-Langer & Colton, 1991) but as Calderhead (1989) emphasizes, it should be an essential part of teacher education. The problem is that reflection is not frequently built into teacher education and the structure of teaching [for a recent Hungarian overview on teacher education and preservice teachers’ motivation, see Smid (2018), and Kálmán (2018) for Hungarian English teachers’ motivation in corporate contexts].

The second and third pedagogical approach points to the fact that teachers can support and foster the development of their students’ self-regulatory skills in both direct and indirect ways (Paris & Paris, 2001). The former indicates a situation when teachers concretely model a strategy use and give explicit instructions, whereas the latter is used when they structure their lessons in a way that their students have the opportunity to discover these learning strategies themselves. However, in practice, teachers tend to provide their students with unguided practice. Teachers should provide their students with clarification about the classroom strategies used, explaining the type of strategy, and why, how, when, and where to use it and how to evaluate its effect (Garner, 1987). Offering tasks that stimulate engagement, guiding the use of SRL strategies, keeping a record of students’ progress, and monitoring their learning process are considered to be important roles of a teacher in promoting self-regulation in the language classroom. According to Zimmerman and Shunk (2001), feedback given by the teacher is the single most important feature in developing students’ self-regulation strategies.

A carefully designed learning environment can foster students’ self-regulation as well (Zimmerman, 1989). Generally said, a learning environment should be stress- and anxiety-free, student-centered, and authentic, where the learners are offered plenty of opportunities to practice self-regulation (Paris & Winograd, 1999). Nakata (2010) claims that in an English classroom, teachers should be aware of their learners’ background: they should know their students’ language-learning history, their language proficiency level, and preferred learning style and strategies. Furthermore, they should be aware of their students’ “attitudes toward learning, the factors impeding their progress and motivation, and the gap between their background and the teacher’s own background as a learner and a teacher (e.g., teachers’ beliefs, teaching styles)” (p. 6). However, Dam (2000) argues that teachers fail to develop their students’ self-regulation for manifold reasons, such as their own insecurity with its implementation, lack of time and material, which might support its development, and because they want to fulfill all the curricular demands and tests.

The Hungarian NCC

Hungary has a three-level curriculum system comprising the NCC, frame curricula, and local curricula. The current 2012 NCC, similarly to its predecessors (1995, 2003, and 2007), constitutes the highest nationwide level of content regulation document issued by the Hungarian Government. The Frame Curricula are accredited by the Ministry of Human Capacities and are developed on the basis of the NCC. Both these documents provide a framework for schools to develop their local curricula, meaning that the latter types of curricula are developed by schools at institutional level (NCC, 2012). The NCC “defines the valid values, the concept of general knowledge, the definition of knowledge and learning” in public education (NCC, 2012, p. 1) and provides a “theoretical, content-related and methodological basis” of school education, a description of the “main fields and content of the subject areas” taught, and defines the educational phases (NCC, 2012, p. 1).

The document itself is divided into three main parts. The first part, “Content regulation and levels of regulation of educational activity,” deals with the general tasks and values of public education, describes the development fields and educational goals. Furthermore, it provides a comprehensive description of the aforementioned three-level curriculum system dealing with each of these levels – NCC, framework curricula, and local curricula – separately. The second main part “Competence development, the dissemination of general knowledge, knowledge acquisition” sets out key competences and offers some guidelines as to how they should be acquired; in other words, the required abilities, skills, knowledge, and attitudes are highlighted. In addition, it offers a description of the 10 subject areas: (a) Hungarian language (Hungarian); (b) Foreign languages; (c) mathematics; (d) man and society including history, ethics, homeland, and peoples; society, citizenship, and economy; philosophy; (e) man and nature including environment, biology, physics, and chemistry; (f) The Earth, our environment; (g) arts including music, drama, and dance; visual culture; video culture and media literacy; (h) IT studies (IT); (i) way of life and practical skills; and (j) physical education and sports. It characterizes the structure of each subject area and recommendation of the percentage rates for each subject area is offered. The material, principle, goals, development tasks, and general competencies are highlighted and are organized along the three phases of education: the phase of primary education (Grades 1–4 and Grades 5–8) and the phase of secondary education (Grades 9–12). The third main part is basically a glossary of the terms and definitions pertaining to content regulation.

Research question

In line with the purpose of my research described in the introduction, and after reviewing the literature, the research presented in this paper seeks to answer the following question:

• RQ1: What kind of teachers’ roles can be identified in relation to the development of self-regulation based on Zimmerman and Moylan’s model?

• RQ2: How do English teachers report on the development of their own and their students’ self-regulation in the Hungarian public educational sphere?

In order to answer the research questions above, a qualitative method was adopted involving face-to-face, semi-structured interviews.

Participants

All of the participants volunteered for the interviews in response to an e-mail recruiting Hungarian English language teachers who were willing to share their ideas about their language-teaching experience. An important issue to highlight here, which might have an effect on the interview results, is that all these teachers completed their mentor training just before the interviews and hold a certificate to that effect. Table 2 summarizes the relevant characteristics of the participants.

Four interviews were conducted for this pilot study during the spring term of the academic year 2017–2018. The pilot sample consisted of four Hungarian English language teachers. The average age of the participants was 38 years and the average length of their teaching experience was 12 years (for further details, see Table 2). I tried to achieve maximum variety in sampling the participants; therefore, in selecting the interviewees, I considered their age, gender, teaching experience, and the type of school they work in.

Instrument

The interview questions were developed specifically for the purpose of this study (see Appendix). The interview guide used in this pilot research was compiled on the basis of the relevant self-regulation literature (Nakata, 2010; Ushioda, 2003; Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009; Zimmerman & Shunk, 2001) and the NCC. The semi-structured interview guide, as the main data-gathering device, turned out to be essentially helpful, capturing the complexity, and diversity of the participants’ views. The interview questions were written in Hungarian, as the interviews were conducted in the mother tongue of the participants. It is important to note that the quotes from the interviews in this paper were translated into English by the author and the translations were double-checked by a colleague. The interview guide consisted of 15 questions, which focused on four main topics: English-teaching experience, roles of an English teacher, effective English language learning, and self-regulation development. Questions dealing with self-regulation development were intentionally left to the end as I was afraid that these might influence the participants’ responses and their perception of and attitudes toward this topic. However, it is interesting to note that during the first phase of the interviews, many self-regulation related issues emerged.

Data collection and analysis

In this pilot study, a qualitative method was adopted involving face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. In the first stage of the research, I conducted interviews with Hungarian English language teachers. The interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the participants and transcribed verbatim. The interview transcripts yielded about 40,000 words of data, which were analyzed by the researcher for emerging themes. The analysis of the transcribed interview data was built on the traditions of the constant comparative method proposed by Maykut and Morehouse (1994) with the help of the ATLAS.ti 7.5.7 qualitative data analysis software (Berlin, Germany). To sum up, I relied on the continuous comparison of newly identified codes with the already established ones. Things were considered emerging when they were mentioned by at least three of the four interviewees. In the second phase, I compared the results of the interview study with the self-regulation-related guidelines of the Hungarian National Curriculum, which was primarily used as a means for gaining additional information on the topic. The document was analyzed using the constant comparative method (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) to identify the key themes related to the conceptualization and integration of SRL. The document was coded inductively with higher levels of abstraction (bottom-up coding) achieved through multiple readings.

Roles related to the forethought phase

Based on the participants’ answers, it is evident that even the lesson planning stage includes many elements, which might foster the development of self-regulatory skills. These elements, however, have an indirect effect on students. All four participants said that they carefully construct all their lessons in advance because they find it important to bring a sense of order into their English language classes. Therefore, their first role lies in conscious lesson planning. For the interviewees, an English lesson is like a journey, which shows students where you start, where you finish, and the route to take to get there. According to the teachers, this is highly important as this way students might consciously or unconsciously develop their personal understanding not just of teaching, but of learning as well.

In the teachers’ unanimous opinion, it is the school’s task to teach learning skills, which is in complete harmony with the guidelines of the NCC: “Teaching students to learn is a basic task of schools. Every teacher is entrusted to encourage interest in the subject he or she teaches and to orient students in the acquisition, structure and access to the study material” (NCC, 2012, p. 12). However, according to Eszter, even if she finds it important, due to excessive workload and constant pressure, there is simply no time to deal with teaching these skills. She expressed her opinion about this in the following way: “You do not have time and energy to deal with those things that you enjoy, and the students would also benefit from.”

“…it is an extra profession, in my opinion. I can very well try to hand on effective learning methods to them. Methods I have experienced during these years and which work the best. I know what I will ask them in a test and while preparing for it I can guide their learning process and make them focus on the essentials. But in my opinion, this requires either an extra profession or I don’t know.” (Eszter)

While two participants’, Eszter’s and Zoltán’s, views are contrasting, the development of the learning to learn skills should start as early as possible at primary school. Zoltán, for instance, indicated: “It is obvious that I point [learning methods] out as often as possible and I do repeat myself all the time again and again […] it would be very useful to focus more on them already at elementary school level.” Eszter described the problem this way, “One would expect us to do so, but we do not cooperate with my colleagues and it would be essential to teach this to children gradually from the very beginning.” The literature seems to support their position as well and highlights it that the development of self-regulation should start as early as age 3 (Nagaoka et al., 2015). After analyzing the NCC, it is evident that the issue of when to start the development of the learning to learn skills is completely neglected. However, the interviewees’ answers and the NCC imply that for effective learning to learn skill development it is important to know your students. But how much do teachers know about their students? Is it possible to get to know your students at all?

According to the interviewees, the quality of the school work and homework is an effective tool for teachers to get to know their students better. Kinga emphasized that there are students who are more open to sharing their stories with the teacher. There are students who talk about how things are at home, because it is a topic they like, some of them are quieter. The shy ones would not talk about it – in their cases, she sees how much extra effort is made at home to improve their English from their work at school. Furthermore, the importance of teaching the learning to learn skills was also primarily mentioned in the context of home learning by the interviewed teachers; that is, the development of the learning to learn skill improves the quality of home preparation.

The participants find it extremely important to establish a solid relationship with their pupils as it may allow them to better differentiate for individual needs. All the teachers emphasized that as their students develop at different rates, differentiated instructions are essential to provide the best learning experience possible. They personalize the learning for their students, which begins with knowing them. Individualization and differentiation are also emphasized throughout the NCC, and “discovering individual learning problems and promoting their solution throughout the process of school education and in all its fields” is highlighted as one of the main principles of assisting successful learning (NCC, 2012, p. 13). The NCC as well as the participants recognizes that it is impossible to teach well without knowing your students.

Roles related to the performance phase

Roles related to the self-reflection phase

Two roles were identified in relation to this phase: being assessors, so giving/getting feedback and being reflective practitioners, in other words, reflecting on the whole teaching and learning process. The interviewees highlighted that, with the help of feedback, students become aware of their attitudes toward studying certain subjects. The feedback provided by the teacher makes the learning process visible and helps students to understand (a) what they are expected to learn, (b) what they have already learned, and (c) how they can promote their own learning and improve their performances. Therefore, receiving and giving feedback – positive and realistic – are considered to support learning and reinforce pupils’ trust in their potential. Their response highlights that feedback is not exclusively given by the teacher. The interviewees underlined that they frequently ask their students to evaluate each other’s work, but evaluating their own work does not happen very frequently. Both Zoltán and Erika stated that self-evaluation happens spontaneously. Zoltán explained that “it is not a planned part of my lessons, it happens impromptu.” Erika reacted in this way, “well, I don’t really ask them to do it…however they slip out a lot, where they evaluate themselves” They admitted that they find self-evaluation important but somehow they forget or do not often think of this aspect of evaluation during their English lessons. It is interesting to note that while the NCC stresses the importance of cooperation and working with others, peer-assessment is not included in its content. The NCC outlines only self-assessment and feedback given by the teacher. The NCC says that teachers must provide feedback on students’ work on a regular basis and students must learn to reflect on their learning process and judge how well they have performed in relation to the assessment criteria.

The participants also emphasized that they frequently ask their students to give them feedback about the teaching process not just after the lesson, but during a lesson. These results are also consistent with the literature. Schön (1983) created his self-reflection theory based on the time frame of reflection. He established two basic types of reflection: reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action. Reflection-on-action is basically about reviewing a past event, so it is an after-the-event thinking, whereas reflection-in-action happens while doing something, so reflection takes place during the event. The teachers find their colleagues’ and other people’s feedback and guidance valuable. They stated that based on the received feedback they change and shape their subsequent lessons. However, every teacher has a “professional maturity,” so it is everyone’s own decision “to decide whether or not to take this advice on board” (Stonehouse, 2011, p. 301). Therefore, it is evident that teachers are lifelong learners and CPD helps educators incorporate new tools and strategies into their teaching process to boost their students’ learning development. Reflection is very useful, not only for in-service teachers, but preservice teachers as well, as it can improve teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom by bringing an awareness of the need for change. It is through this change that learning and development occur. This is also the point where we get back to the first, forethought face, ending and starting the next self-regulating circle.