My Task
is to write about 6 different concepts, two from each of the three articles we
were assigned to read. My goal is to complete this highly complex task before
deadline which is Tuesday 17.11.2015. I believe that I will be able to meet
this deadline because of my high level of dedication and determination to this
course and to the whole LET program in general. The concepts I would like to
tackle in this task are; Collaborative Emotional Regulation vs. Individual
Emotional Regulation, Environmental Structuring, Self-Handicapping.
Collaborative
vs. Individual Emotion Regulation
The
research by Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009) has concluded that students
can regulate their emotions collaboratively as well as individually during the
learning process, conditionally if they were made conscious of their personal
differences which could lead to potential conflicts under certain circumstances.
To
support this conclusion from my own experience in teaching for several years I
can emphasize that a lot of students do their best in academic life to fit
within the group dynamics whenever there is a situation that requires
collaborative work. The peer pressure and other factors such as self-esteem
during collaborative work encourages students’ positive reactions hence emotion
regulation among adults, both at the individual as well as collaborative level.
That is the reason why I design several collaborative activities in my
classroom delivery knowing its effectiveness.
An
interesting question raised by Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S (2009) “Do
students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges?” this question brings
to light another question in mind, a question that has to do with
distinguishing the emotionally intelligent and self-disciplined from the other
students. Having had the experience of teaching thousands of students, it was
evident to me that each one of them had a different level of emotional
intelligence and self-discipline. Hence, I can answer the question by saying, I
saw some students were able to regulate their emotions and some others were not
and the ones who were able to do that were emotionally intelligent. As for the
students who failed to regulate their emotions were trapped inside and I had to
give a hand of encouragement as a facilitator to bring them out of it.
Goal Orientation
As defined by Marcou, A. (2005) 'Goal Orientation' refers to the
students’ perception of the reasons why to engage in a learning task. In
his study, Marcou A. made two distinctions to study the concept; intrinsic
and extrinsic goal orientation. The definition seems inclusive to any reason
that could be inside the learners head or outside the learner's environment.
Intrinsic goal orientation,
Marcou explains that concerns the degree to which a student perceives
himself to be participating in a task for reasons such as challenge,
curiosity and mastery, using self-set standards and self-improvement.
To give an example, I would say that any interest from the learner's side in
the task itself for the task is considered an intrinsic goal orientation.
Anything that has nothing to do with the external environment of a learner. The decisive factor here is that
learner is driven by his or her own inside world.
Extrinsic goal orientation
He explains that it denotes that a student participates in a task for
reasons such as grades, rewards, performance, evaluations by others and competition.
That means anything that has to do with the external environment of a learner,
anything that motivates him/her for obtaining certain rewards is considered an
extrinsic goal orientation according to this definition. The decisive
factor here is that learner is driven NOT by his or her own inside world but by
the outside world.
Environmental
Structuring
This strategy is defined as decreasing the possibility of off-task behavior by
reducing the probability of encountering a distraction or by reducing the
intensity of distractions that do occur. Wolters, C. A. (2003). Managing and
controlling our current environment while studying or to facilitate the process
of learning is essential for successful learning experience. Self-regulated
learners use different ways to influence their learning environment in order to
increase their motivation for achieving their goals. I remember when I was
young at high school, I used to buy my younger brother a lot of chocolates and
sweets so that he becomes quite in order for me to be able to study in a calm
environment.
Even
though this concept is great, yet I am against using a very technical
terminology related to engineering such as ‘Environmental
Structuring’ to describe very
primitive actions learners take to make their study place quite. Having read a
lot of literature over the past three years about ‘Learning Strategies’ It seems to me that everything a
learner does can be classified as a ‘Strategy’ in the literature which makes no sense as there
are thousands of very simple activities and little actions than can be
classified as ‘Strategies’ if we follow this approach. To me a
strategy is more than simple activities or actions, it’s about goals, actions
and sequence.
Self-Handicapping
Another
strategy for regulating motivation involves the manufacture of obstructions before
or during a task that make performing that task more difficult. Wolters, C. A.
(2003). This somewhat counter-intuitive regulation of motivation activity has
been labeled “self-handicapping” (Riggs, 1992; Urdan & Midgley, 2001).
It is
interesting to get to know that putting off doing work until the last minute is
classified as examples of motivation regulation strategies. To me the issue is
black and white, meaning you either have a strategy or you do not. But in
theory, not having a strategy is treated as a strategy in itself. What is even
more interesting is to know that students gain some sort of benefits from these
strategies as Wolters, C. A. claims; “The motivational benefits of using this
strategy are somewhat equivocal…”
Reflection
This is
an inspiring article that added a different aspect to my teaching experience
based on which I am planning to develop a set of ‘Inductive Techniques’ as part
of classroom instructional design in order to support collaborative emotion
regulation. By inductive technique, I mean getting students involved in
consciously regulating their own emotions during the learning process by means
of ‘noticing’ instead of explaining to them what they should
and should not do during collaborative work.
“Other people
can shape an individual’s engagement and regulation processes by other- or
co-regulating their learning (Higgins, 2000)”, this is something that I have
experienced a lot in several classroom practices and I tend to use it to
support my classroom delivery through assignments of challenging tasks to the
super-active students in order to support the less active ones, which in turn
adds pressure on the latter to respond to the former ‘super-active’.
The
planning for this task went well, except that when I had a physical problem in
my right hand and arm where I couldn't continue typing, all my motivation went
really down. Another thing that killed my motivation for completing the task is
the complexity and ineffective instructional design of the task. .
Main
Challenge
The main
challenge I had during this task is regulating my own motivation as the
expectations from these SOLO tasks seems unrealistic and exaggerated in away
that seems not a 'normal' learning environment. It seems that there are
academic researchers behind who are manipulating the environment this way in
order to obtain certain data. So the feeling of being a subject of research
during these tasks is very stressful.