LoE VISION III: The Mentoring Process (or what happens when the mentors and mentees meet)


The Learning of Expertise course comes to its end for this semester and so does the mentoring process between the first and the second year LET students (mentees and mentors respectively). I totally get it why mentoring was included into our course – mentoring is one of the ways to design the learning where the 21st century learning skills are taken into an account and it’s a must for both mentors and mentees to possess them in order to achieve the worthy results. Mentoring, if implemented right, can also contribute to both mentors’ and mentees’ personal growth and development & broaden their outlooks & horizons.


Mentor is not just a made up word. Mentor was a character from the Greek mythology, whose real name has been adopted in English as a term meaning someone who shares his or her knowledge, wisdom and views with a less experienced colleague. Thus mentee in this context is exactly that “less experienced colleague”. This year being a mentee was my role.

Telemachus and Mentor in the Odyssey

Telemachus and Mentor in the Odyssey

In order to be a good mentee, I had to clearly understand my role in the process. The process of mentoring should ideally be the privilege for both mentors and mentees, as everyone can learn something from each other and get some useful tips, information or simply to see the situation from different perspectives. That’s why mentors and mentees are (almost) equally responsible for the outcome of the mentoring sessions and for the atmosphere these sessions are carried out in. But are there the things the mentees should be especially aware of? After some additional reading on the topic, I got that the mentee should have the eagerness to learn, ability and willingness to work as a team player, patience, readiness to take up action, help the mentors and contribute to the process & have a positive attitude. Mentee should not only absorb the mentor’s knowledge, but also to have the willingness, ability and ambition to make this knowledge his or her own and use it afterwards.

The mentoring process in our group went really well, in my opinion. It was a smooth and interesting ride with everyone having respect for each other and each other’s needs, schedules and interests and I’m pretty sure that the guys who attended all the meetings will have nothing really negative to say about them. Our sessions were really good and, most importantly, felt really good – it was informal in a good way and I feel like it was something which can be called “productive fun”. I mean it was really cool to hang out with my peers from the 2nd (and the final) year of the LET programme & at the same time receive some useful information.

Info Sessions Graphic

In total we had 5 mentoring sessions organized and I was involved in all of them. They were really different from each other and all took place in different environments, but I’ve enjoyed all of them. I was fully committed to those sessions not simply because of my own interest, but also because of the sense of respect towards our mentors, who did their best to come up with good sessions for us. Such efforts shouldn’t be left unnoticed or unappreciated.

I thought putting everything about our meetings and experiences into one post might be a good idea, so here we go. First and foremost, as I’ve already mentioned on the wrap-up meeting and in this post, our mentoring process was really cool and, most importantly, felt really good – it was informal in a good way and I feel like it was something which can be called “productive fun”. I mean it was really cool to hang out with my peers from the 2nd (and the final) year of the LET programme & at the same time receive some useful information.

Meeting # 1: Receiving information about studies & planning next sessions @ University of Oulu, Snellmania // 27.01.2015

Right after the classroom meeting with our teachers we’ve gathered in that always open part of the Snellmania restaurant, which has the glass walls and which is, by the way, often being called “the fishbowl” because of that, according to one of our mentors, Dylan. I’ve never heard that name, but it makes sense, though. So yeah, gathered there, decided to skip the icebreaker activities, as we’ve already known each other, discussed the 2nd year of LET studies, got some tips from our 2nd year students & mentors regarding the thesis work (for instance, to use Endnote) and dived straing into the future schedule discussion, as we wanted everyone to be pleased with it.


Meeting #2: Beer and mead making tutorial/workshop + hangout @ Syynimaa + Joni’s place // 06/07.02.2015

To organize the beer and mead making workshop was Dylan’s idea, and it worked out really well & resulted in us having a great evening/night. We gathered in Syynimaa, were treated with an interesting presentation on beer origins and brewing processes by Dylan and started to (collaboratively 😀 ) make mead from scratch. We did quite well, I think (thanks to Dylan’s guidance). Then we’ve decided to continue the evening, got into Joni’s car and went to the store. The guys also offered to take me to Ideapark, as I needed to buy a chair in Jysk there, which was great, ‘cos otherwise I’d have to carry this huge box on me across the whole city (thanks again, guys! 😀 ). After the shopping was done, we decided to continue the evening in Joni’s place, just chatting, chilling, watching videos, playing videogames (haven’t played any in years and years!) and doing stuff. Great evening it was! That’s what I meant when I said that our mentoring process had a great atmosphere.


These 2 photos above are courtesy of Huong (thank you! :) )

These 2 photos above are courtesy of Huong (thank you! 🙂 )


Meeting #3: Polar Bear Pitching event @ Raati // 25.02.2015

The guys attended the event and some of them – the event & the afterparty. I wasn’t able to interact a lot with pretty much anyone during the event itself, as I was working there as a staff member, but hopefully everyone liked it 🙂 It was a lot of work for me before, during and after the event, but I highly enjoyed it and still managed to have a lot of fun & gain a lot of useful experience along the way. Cheers to everyone involved!!!



Meeting #4: Working life in Finland info session @ University of Oulu, with Aippi // 25.03.2015

Aippi kindly organized this session for us and it was a good one – we’ve received some useful info on how do things work in the working life here in Finland and how do the HR specialists work. I think we still have the CV/LinkedIn workshop coming up on the 11th of May. Thanks a lot for the session and your time, Aippi! 🙂

Unfortunately, don’t have any photos from this one.

Meeting #5: Wrap-up // BBQ @ Linnanmaa, Yliopistokatu // 26.04.2015

We’ve decided to organize the final wrap-up meeting outside & just grill and chat. Not too many of us were there, but it was still good. We shared ideas, discussed our plans for Summer a little bit and just enjoyed our time, really. Thanks for the nice & smoky afternoon, guys! 😀



This photo is courtesy of Pavi. Thanks, man! 🙂

Overall, the mentoring process was a cool and enjoyable thing which gave us an opportunity to receive some useful info, become closer to our peers and have some additional fun 🙂 We’ve already shared our suggestions in the final classroom meeting, but here they are one more time: maybe it will be good to: 1) have the mentoring process in the beginning of the academic year (Sept/Oct); 2) make the group forming process more customized, i.e. to connect people with the similar interests and even the people with different backgrounds, spheres of expertise, faculties, departments or whatever.

Anyway, it was a good ride and huge thanks to everyone involved! 🙂 

Until next time!



LoE VISION II: Mentoring is Meaningful


“Mentor” and “mentoring” are the words which sound quite massive, don’t they? When I hear or see them, I think about the help, assistance, support and guidance & the more effective process of learning; the ability to pass on the experience and teach, inspire & motivate people to acquire the genuine knowledge is really, really important. 

So why the mentoring can be viewed as a powerful and effective tool for professional development and growth? 

1. Nash, P. & Shaffer Williamson, D. (2011): Mentor modeling: the internationalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game.


The article focuses on the mentoring concept and one particular for of it – the modeling of professional thinking – in the epistemic computer games (computer games that simulate professional practica (Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011)) training environment. The game under study was the Urban Science.
The theoretical background of the concept dates back to the 70s, when, for example, Vygotsky’s works on cognitive development talk about the dependance of child’s higher cognitive processes development on the presence of the “mediating agents”, who sort of help a child to better understand the problem he or she is to solve and to better structure & plan the working process while providing the guidance and support & being present at the problem solving phase itself. The children, according to Vygotsky’s works, are also able to imitate the mediating agents’ actions, which are then converted to the internal developmental processes (Vygotsky,1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes; cited in Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011). 

The study concluded that the “mentees” adopted the mentors’ frames and after some time passed were able to use them successfully without the mentors’ additional guidance; in other words, they “internalized professional thinking to the extent that they no longer needed the mentors’ scaffold” (Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011, p. 187). Thus, the study confirmed Vygotsky’s hypothesis – “what a child can [do] with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow”(Vygotsky,1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes; cited in Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011, p.87). In the course of this study, the mentors modelled the professional thinking, which contributed to their mentees’ development of epistemic frames, proving the point that “the imitation of modeled behaviour is one important
step in the process of internalization” (Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011, p. 187).

The study also introduces the new way to measure how both mentors and players, which are the game participants in this case, link the elements of the epistemic frame during gameplay (Shaffer et al., 2009; cited in Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011) – Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA). In other words, ENA makes it possible to observe when and how often the abovemetioned frame elements are linked plus “the relationship between trends in the players’ demonstration of the epistemic frame and different features of the game” (Nash & Shaffer Williamson, 2011, p. 176). Even though the study has some limitations mentioned in the corresponding section, ENA proved to be useful mean for the development of epistemic frames measurment.

2. Bullough, R. (2005) : Being and becoming a mentor: school-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity.


The article highlights the importance of the teacher educator and mentor positions and dwells upon the problem of the teachers being assigned a teacher educator or a mentor status either without or with a lack of special instructional trainings beforehand. This is a very important problem, as not all the teachers are or even can be the good mentors or teacher educators just as not all the good actors, for example, can become the good film directors or the script writers.  

As the article reads, “the current study draws on data from a mentor and two interns who were part of a larger study involving 9 mentors and 14 secondary education interns in mathematics, English, history and social studies, and the biological sciences.” (Bullough, 2005, p. 145) with the main focus on the secondary school English teacher in her early 40s and on the difficulties and challenges she’ve faced after being assigned a “mentor” status.

I’m really on the same page with the idea presented in the article: not only the trainees/mentees need the training sessions, guidance, teaching and support, but also the mentors themselves. How can they be the good mentors if they’re not quite sure and/or confident in what they’re doing? How can they be good mentors if they’re overloaded with work and simply have no time and powers to acquire new skills and to master them? It’s not quite possible, if you ask me. 

The teacher described in the article faced all of the abovementioned problems after being assigned the “mentor” status and put as the head of the interns. She aimed at being recognized not only as a competent teacher, but also as a competent mentor and educator of the beginner teachers, but  recieved no guidance, support or even the feedback from the University staff, who, in their turn, were extremely busy as well and just ignored the teacher. Thus we can make a conclusion that in order to make all the mentoring concept and system work, the system itself should be well thought-through and all the “elements” of the system should know their places, duties and responsibilities. Lack of interaction and collaboration kills the whole process of mentoring, making the results a lot worse and severely influencing the teachers’ self-perception and levels of motivation and confidence. 

 Mentors should feel like mentors to be able to act like mentors. Makes perfect sense, right? 🙂

Mentoring Word Cloud

To me, the concept of mentoring looks like quite a complicated and demanding process of interaction between the mentors and mentees.

The mentor should:

– be confident in what he or she does as a mentor;

– make sure he or she acts like a mentor and is good enough to be called a mentor;

– help the mentee to define, find and follw his or her direction;

– boost his or her mentee’s self-confidence

– challenge his or her mentee to strive for better results;

– let the mentee to explore new ideas; no severe limitations should be present;

– raise mentee’s self-awareness;

– teach, inspire & motivate; the mentor should definitely be charismatic and inspiring;

– not to forget to collaborate with his or her mentees – this can get the mentoring process to the new heights; a teacher always has something to learn from his or her students or from the situations which happen in the course of the interaction between them, right? 🙂



Bullough, R. (2005): Being and becoming a mentor: school-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 2005

Nash, P. & Shaffer Williamson, D. ( 2011): Mentor modeling: the internationalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

LoE VISON I: UBIKO School Visit


At the end of the previous year the students of the LET programme had the cool opportunity to visit the UBIKO school, which stands for, according to their official website, the ubiqutous technology enhanced learning and is “a reseach based development project aiming to renew the school and to understand what kind of school promotes inspired and skillfull learners”; in other words, the project’s aim was to modify the concept of school and the school learning environment for the 21st century and make it work, make the most out of it. It had been funded by Finnish National Board of Education (2011-2013) and had been one of the 5 nominees of the EAPRIL Best Research & Practice Project Award in 2013. Here’s more information on this special place from the same abovementioned website:

“UBIKO consists of110 4th and 5th graders (age 10-11) working with their teachers in a designated unit of Oulu University Teacher Training School (OUTTS) and it is mainly funded by The Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE).
In 2012 UBIKO was strengthened, as the University properties of Finland Ltd (the owner of the school building) conjoined pursuing for the common goal. With support of the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES) it started the Ubiko DEMO project, comprising several studies on the effects of changes on architectural indoor design and indoor environmental factors, eg. indoor air quality, acoustics and lightning, on teachers’ and pupils’ activities. The DEMO included renovation of the UBIKO -unit from 5 traditional classrooms to a learning environment that supports UBIKO’s pedagogical aims.
Currently UBIKO provides a platform for multidisciplinary approach for research and
pedagogical development.”
More than that, we got to meet Heikki Kontturi, who is the Project Manager of UBIKO. He presented us the school’s background & concept, explained how is the school connected to the University of Oulu and the Oulu University Teacher Training School, gave us a tour and answered our questions. It was a great visit indeed.
The UBIKO project’s official website also points out the aims of the school, which are just plain great, in my opinion:

“We would like our pupils to be aware of their own abilities so they can set personal goals for their learning and modify those if necessary. They should be able to utilize efficient learning strategies (analyze, practice, take notes) in their studies and to monitor and evaluate the attainment of their goals. To support their leaning pupils should know how and when to modify and regulate their learning environment The main objectives of UBIKO are:

I. to develop the curriculum,

II. to find effective methods to promote selfregulation among primary school pupils (age 10-11),

III. to develop teamwork among teachers,

IV. to enric multi-locational learning in school context.”


3D drawing of UBIKO -unit by Heikki Luminen

Such an innovative and unorthodox learning environment is not effective only for children, but also for the teachers, as working in such a location positively affect the teachers’ expertise, offers more ground for their professional development and gives a better understanding and awareness of what the modern education means and can bring to the table.
 UBIKO school has 5 classrooms, which are merged into one powerful and effective learning environment, which is aimed to pormote and support the collaborative and self-regulated learning among the students from the early age and to give the teachers an opportunity and possibilities to effectively interact and co-work each and every day. To me, the main uniqueness of the environment is that both the teachers and the students, while following the Finnish school education programme and using, for example, the textbooks which any other school uses, have a lot of choices where to learn and how; there’re all the possibilities for all ways of studying: alone, in groups, in pairs – you name it and the access to both the “old school” learning tools (books, whiteboards, musical instruments) and technology (iPads, computers, etc.). I also liked the idea that even while being at school the pupils can get some privacy if they feel they need to – in my opinion, the calm and relaxing spots to be on your own is something which is missing at most of the schools and it’s the problem; in UBIKO, there’re the individual and very comfortable and cosy “cells” (or whatever you want to call them) the students can get into and close the doors – it looks like a big wardrobe and I don’t doubt it’s popularity among the pupils. At least I would have absolutely loved to have such a place available for me back when I was studying at school. 🙂
enthusiasm wordle
The patterns of classroom teaching which maximize pupils’ achievements were described and studied back in the eighties. They are (Brophy and Good, 1986; cited in Hagger, McIntyre, 2006): 
structuring (the material is not only actively presented by the teachers, but is also organized in a proper and logical way and has a good flow: transitions between the lesson parts and lessons, introductions and conclusions, main ideas reviews, main ideas underlining, etc; in other words, the relation and connections of the studied parts should be clear to the students, it’s essential!); 
redundancy/sequencing (repetition and reviewing of general rules and key concepts when it’s logical and justified); 
сlarity (clear presentation of information; task understanding do also belong here!);
enthusiasm (important to both teachers and students: teacher shold be passionate, motivated and enthusiastic about what he or she teaches and brings out to the students and the students should be passionate, motivated and enthusiastic about their own learning); 
pacing/wait-time (every lesson should follow a pace which works for this or that classroom audience and age group; the pace is usually faster in the primary school – partially to minimize the moments of students’ inattention and the way the students process the basic information they get, and generally slower later on, as the teachers are making the longer and more complicated presentations while dwelling upon more complicated stuff, which makes it absolutely essential to have the so-called wait-time to let the information “sink in”).
Does the UBIKO project follow these patterns and take the whole teaching thing to the higher level? In my opinion, the answer to both parts of this question is definitely a “yes”. In such a flexible learning environment, which give the teachers an opportunity to work as a team, give students an opportunity to work as a team and give the teachers AND students an opportunity to work as a team the great results can be acheived. It’s great to see such a projects being funded and coming to life and even greater to see and realize that this school is not meant to be only for the children from the rich families.
Also, it’s great to see that UBIKO is the right step towards the elimination of some of the problems in the sphere of education, which are both old and new. Here are some examples:
I. Everybody’s different and this should be definitely acknowledged and respected in the learning process by both the teachers and the peer students.
How good are your tree climbing skills, huh?

 II. Some people keep insisting on the idea that the educational system didn’t change for better with the emergence of technology and computer-supported learning. The picture above perfectly illustrates this point, showing exactly the same amount of student’s boredom, suggesting that nothing has changed (in this case) in 53 years. How true is this?

In my opinion, it’s true only for the ones who don’t know or weren’t taught or even self-taught (because it’s possible to self-teach yourself in this case these days, yeah!) how to effectively use technology in learning.
Blessing for some, curse for the others. I guess it’s always like that.
Hagger, H. & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning Teaching From Teachers : Realising the Potential of School-based Teacher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press, 2006.


Self-regulated learning is a complicated phenomenon and self-regulation concept is not the easy one to control and understand. There is an evidence that the learners who are able to self-regulate their learning and self-assess their strong and weak sides are more successful in their learning throughout their entire lives, but this argument is simply not enough to evoke the students’ interest towards the concept.


Are there ways to support and promote SRL? Are the concepts of intervention and self-assessment able to take the role of game-changers and help the teachers to promote SRL to students and evoke & provoke their interest towards it?

PLEASE NOTE that if you’re familiar with the articles already you again might want to go ahead and scroll down directly to the ICE-notes, which are still more of a personal rants 😀

Let’s see how the following articles answer these questions.

1.   Dignath, C., Buettner, G., Langfeldt, H-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes.


The article presents “the results of a differentiated meta-analysis of 48 treatment comparisons resulting from 30 articles on enhancing self-regulated learning amongst primary school students” (p. 101) (Dignath, Buettner, Langfeldt, 2008).

1. Self-regulated learning interventions have a positive effect on academic performance, strategy use, and motivation even of the primary school students.

The researchers’ point of view on the problem of teaching the primary school children the self-regulation skills changed in the recent years; the self-regulation wasn’t considered to be possible in the primary school because it wasn’t clear what are the reasons behind the self-regulatory features which some of the primary school children possess.

The current study shows the evidence that the introduction of self-regulation concept and self-regulation skills to the primary school students is beneficial and can be perceived as the basement for the things to come; more than that, the better this basement is, the faster the acquisition of SRL happens in the future and more successful the usage of cognitive and metacognitive strategies is. The earlier the child knows what self-regulation is and the earlier he or she has an ability to try self-regulation in practice – the better.

2. How to make the self-regulation intervention programmes most effective for primary school students.

The study (quite expectedly) found that the primary school children are not yet capable and competent enough to efficiently collaborate and work in groups; thus, they still need a lot of instructions about cooperation and, of course, someone to guide them through the whole process of new skill acquisition. The training programme “should be based on social-cognitive theories, should train cognitive (especially elaboration and problem solving strategies), metacognitive (especially planning strategies), and motivational strategies (especially feedback), and provide knowledge about strategy use and about its benefit” (p. 121) (Dignath, Buettner, Langfeldt, 2008).

Therefore, instruction and introduction sessions & monitoring and guidance throughout the whole training process are absolutely crucial before the usage of the self-regulation intervention programmes in primary school. If carried out correctly, the intervention programme is able to support the emergence of SRL skills of the primary school students in both classroom and outside-the-classroom contexts and promote the better self-control and self-monitoring of those students’ learning.

3. There are no universal interventions for all.

The study suggests that the interventions are different and unique for different students. Impact of the students’ age, condition and personal characteristics as moderators imply differences in the effectiveness of the interventions. Thus, for example, according to the present study’s “limitations” section itself, “results cannot be generalized to intervention with older students” and “analysis excluded study samples consisting of students with learning disabilities” (p. 121) (Dignath, Buettner, Langfeldt, 2008), because they were so different.

The limitations suggest that “further research should compare the usefulness of training characteristics in relation to the age of the students in more detail” (p. 121) (Dignath, Buettner, Langfeldt, 2008)

2. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students.

1. Defining the self-assessment.

First the article presents the classic definition of self assessment: “student activity through which it judges their own learning, specifically its acheivements and its results” (p. 556) (Boud & Falchikov, 1989; cited in Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013). Then the article introduces another definition, which, from the authors’ point of view, consists the innovative features not present in the classic one: “self-assessment is the qualitative assessment of the learning process, and of its final product, realized on the basis of the pre-established criteria” (p. 556) (Panadero, 2011, p. 78; cited in Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013).

The authors’ definition, as contrasted with the classic one, highlights several very important points:

– The assessment is qualitative and not just plain quantitative, as some of the students and even some of the teachers might view and understand (it’s not simply the task to give a 1-5 grade to yourself!);

– The assessment should not only be done at the final stage of the work, but throughout the whole process; self-assessment should have an impact on the whole process of self-regulation and goal setting;

– The assessment should have the pre-established criteria, which are both external and internal: set and introduced by the teacher, set in course of the collaboration between the teacher and his or her students and – last but not least – the reflection criteria, which are set by the student on his or her own;

– The assessment criteria (especially the internal ones) are dependant on the level of “perfection” the student aims to acheive. The assessment criteria for the student who wants just to pass the test on the subject differs a lot from the assessment criteria of the student aiming for becoming an expert in this or that field.

2. Role of self-assessment in the self-regulation process.

According to what the present study suggests, “self-assessment a key process of self-regulation” (p. 558) (Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013), as it’s the “act of becoming aware of the learning processes” and their outcomes and “reflecting on them” (Paris & Paris, 2001, Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001, Winne & Hadwin, 1998, Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009; cited in Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013).

So, self-assessment can lead to the better execution and completion of further tasks through realizing your mistakes and weak spots & eliminating them and can certainly be viewed as one of the fundamental processes of SRL.

3. Promoting self-assessment.

Students should be aware that self-assessment is not only the phenomenon introduced by the teacher for them to evaluate (or even worse, put marks to) themselves and jsut forget about that, but the ongoing process which can help them be a better learners, avoid making the same mistakes throughout the process and find better learning techniques for themselves which really work for them, not just for someone else.

Teachers should support and provoke the usage of self-assessment by:

– introducing self-assessment as a crucial concept for their own development and growth and not as something which is just “another feature” of the educational proccess or just another action or task from the teacher;

– letting the students modify their own work if they became aware of their own mistakes and failures; this approach will help students to understand the whole concept of self-assessment and its usefulness;

creating opportunities for students to use, practice and master the self-assessment skills in different contexts for them not to be limited by, for example, only one discipline or only one type of the task.

ICE-note YKSI: Lifelong learning.


When me and my groupmates Hany and Henry were preparing for our teaching session dedicated to self-assessment and were reading quite a lot of material for it,  we’ve found out that there’s a point of view that, despite all the age difficulties, it’s still possible to introduce the skills of self-assessment at the early years of education using ProPELS, rubrics, think aloud protocols, etc. in childhood education and it’s very worth it doing so. The earlier you start – the easier it will be to continue afterwards and the higher results the individual will be able to get; in other words, a better perspective it might have for a more effective and fast development of these skills in the future.

It makes even more sense if we connect it to the concept of the lifelong learning, which stands for the ongoing, flexible self-motivated and self-regulated pursuit of knowledge either for professional or personal reasons which takes place throughout the entire individual’s life. Self-regulated learning is one of the key concepts there; according to Zimmerman (1989), it is regarded as one of the most important skills for lifelong learning.

In other words, if you at least have the idea of what is self-assessment and self-regulation from the early age, you have the awareness you need to start using those approaches and concepts in the future.

ICE-note KAKSI: Self-directed learning.

Returning to the teaching session me and my groupmates have prepared, we’ve had one more important term which is also worth putting here, because it’s closely connected to self-assessment and the whole SRL concept. This term is self-directed learning. Even though the researchers at times view self-regulated learning (SRL) and self-directed learning (SDL) as twins and note that regardless of the term used, ones possessing self-directed learning or self-regulated learning skills are likely to be clear winners of the 21st century society (Collins, 2006; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013),  we’ve dared to view self-regulated learning as the path to self-directed learning and attempted to prove our point.

When contrasting SDL and SRL the first thing to be stated is the origin of the concepts. Self-directed learning is a concept of adult education from the 1970s-1980s whereas self-regulated learning which is somewhat younger originates from educational psychology and cognitive psychology. SDL due to its adult education roots is mostly used for describing the learning activities outside traditional school environment and involves the aspect of designing learning environments. Self-regulated learning, on the other hand, is mostly studied in the school environment (Loyens et al, 2008; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013) but it should not exclude the possibility of designing a personal learning environment. Self-directed learning has been considered a broader construct encompassing self-regulated learning as narrower and more specific one. SDL has also been treated as a broader concept in the sense of learner’s freedom to manage his learning activities and the degree of control the learner has. In SDL this is the learner who defines the learning task, in SRL it may also be a teacher (Loyens et al, 2008; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013).

According to Jossberger, Brand-Gruwel, Boshuizen and Wiel (2010) (cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013), the constructs of self-directed learning skills and self-regulated learning skills are ascribed to different levels. While self-directed learning is suggested to be situated at the macro level, self-regulated learning is stated to be the micro-level concept. The macro-level self-directed learning refers to the planning of the learning trajectory – a self-directed learner is able to decide what needs to be learned next and how his learning is best accomplished. A skillful self-directed learner diagnoses his learning needs, formulates learning goals, finds suitable resources for learning and monitors his learning activities. A self-directed learner is able, ready and willing to prepare, execute, and complete learning independently (Jossberger et al, 2010; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013).

Within cognitive psychology, self-regulated learning has been considered students’ independence in learning – an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and attempt to monitor, regulate and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and contextual features on the environment (Pintrich, 2000; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013).

Self-regulation initially emphasized behavioral and emotional regulation. With Bandura’s later writings on self-efficacy, motivation emerged as an additional regulatory area. Self-regulation emphasizes the reciprocal determinism of the environment on the person, mediated through behavior (Dinsmore, 2008; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013).

In other words, a self-directed learner is supposed to self-regulate, but a self-regulated learner may not self-direct. From this point of view, self-directed learning deals more with subsequent steps in the learning process. Providing students with opportunities for self-directed practice can help to improve their self-regulation (Jossberger et al, 2010; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013). In a self-directed learning environment, students have more freedom to generate and pursue their own goals, and undertake critical evaluation of the materials they select. The self-directed learner initiates the learning task, whereas in self-regulated learning, the task can be set by the teacher (Robertson, 2011; cited in Saks and Leijen, 2013).

Despite the seeming similarity of the concepts of SDL and SRL, the theoretical backgrounds and dimensions, however, differ respectively and that is why our point was that the terms should not be used synonymously.


Saks, K., Leijen, Ä. (2013). Distinguishing Self-Directed and Self- Regulated Learning and Measuring them in the E-learning Context. International Conference on Education & Educational Psychology 2013 (ICEEPSY 2013)

Reflection Finale


The SRL course has been very informative and quite interesting. I really liked that we had the freedom to be creative and I genuinely liked working collaboratively with my team on the teaching session we’ve carried out, which not always happens, as successful and at the same time “comfortable” collaboration is not that easy to achieve. 

The articles were different and demanding (especially due to their lengthy data we needed to get into), but all of them were worth reading. If I had to choose only one written task to do, I would have chosen the ICE-notes – I simply enjoyed writng them a lot more than summarizing the articles in the written form; also, ICE-notes are the good way to both express your opinions and share your visions & show that you understand the material and its key concepts well.

The only thing I’d like to have more is the guidance from the teachers, as now I’m not even sure that I’ve done all these blog posts the correct way and the way the teachers wanted us to do them.

Thank you! 🙂  


Dignath, C., Buettner, G., Langfeldt, H-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, pp. 101-129

Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 551-576. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12200

Saks, K., Leijen, Ä. (2013). Distinguishing Self-Directed and Self-Regulated Learning and Measuring them in the E-learning Context. International Conference on Education & Educational Psychology 2013 (ICEEPSY 2013)

Zimmermann, B. J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 329-339.


Self-regulated learning and metacognition… two terms interwined and crucial to the whole concept of self-regulation, as more and more researchers claim over the years. So let’s try to find out why these two phenomena are closely connected and highly important.

PLEASE NOTE that if you’re familiar with the articles already you again might want to go ahead and scroll down directly to the ICE-notes, which are still more of a personal rants 😀

Self-regulation and metacognition approaches help learners to think about their own learning more explicitly: set goals, elavuate and monitor their own academic development, stay focused and motivated. Metacognition, being sort of  “learning how to learn” concept (or “act of thinking about thinking” (Flavell, 1978)), helps to deal with 6 serious SRL challenges: poor task understanding; vague goals and plans; weak strategies or wrong choice of strategy; lack of monitoring; inaccurate self-evaluation.

Let’s find out what do the following 3 articles have to say on this broad and important topic.

1. Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting Effective Task Interpretation as an Important Work Habit: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning.

The article dwells upon the importance of careful and properly made task demand interpretation by the students, or the problem of task understanding. The students (in order to complete the assigned task successfully) should adopt the right learning strategies and the ways to deal with problems and solve them. But the main point here is that first and foremost the students should understand the task and everything that task demands; otherwise, they would most likely fail in choosing the right strategies and the ways to deal with the obstacles they may come across. Also, the authors suggest that task interpretation can be promoted as “an important work habit in pursuit of effective learning” (Butler and Cartier, 2004).


1. In order to succeed with their tasks, learners must not only know the purpose of tasks, but also to understand how (academic) tasks are structured. Example: “good writers understand that narrative texts are structured around setting, plot, and resolution and that expository texts are structured using predictable organizations (e.g., enumeration, comparison/contrast, cause/effect) (Gordon, 1990; cited in Butler and Cartier, 2004).

2. In addition to the abovementioned knowledge about task purpose and structure, effective learners construct metacognitive knowledge about typical task components and deeply understand the importance and purpose of each of these stages, which helps to improve the quality and value of the final product or outcome. Example: “good writers know that writing tasks typically play out in four interlocking and recursive stages, namely planning, drafting, editing, and revising” (Englert et al., 1992, Flower & Hayes, 1981, Wong, 1999; cited in Butler and Cartier, 2004).

3. Task understanding and correct task interpretation promotion (the teacher’s role is to support active, reflective, and productive task interpretation). The teacher shouldn’t focus only on “students’ construction of productive metacognitive knowledge and conceptions about tasks”, but also on students’ “awareness of task interpretation as a learning activity,
and of strategies for task interpretation” (Butler and Cartier, 2004). Also, students’ focus on acheiving the personal goals and on evaluating their successes and failures should be supported, as it positively influences the students’ overall motivation in the learning process.


In order to be successful, the learners should be able to habitually interpret the tasks at the very first step towards the task completion, and teacher is the one to highlight it in the learning process and introduce the approaches to his or her students. 

2. Weinstein, C. E., Acce, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies.

The researches and practitioners agree that the learning strategies involve “the use of cognition, metacognition, motivation, affect, and behaviour to increase the probability of succeeding in learning, creating memorable and retrievable memories and performing higher-order cognitive tasks, such as problem solving” (p.45) (Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zeidner, 2000 & Zimmermann, 200; cited in Weinstein, Acce and Jung, 2011).

The learning, according to the article, should be strategic and, in this regard, well thought-through in order to be successful.

1. Model of Strategic Learning.

– Any efficient learner should have the skills of how to properly and efficiently use the learning strategies and make the most of yhis or her thinking;

– Any learner’s skill should be combined with will. The willingness to do things increases motivation and motivation leads to higher academic (and not only academic) results in pretty much everything you do;

– Any efficient learner should be able to self-regulate himself or herself. If there’s no self-regulation, the learning strategies are unlikely to function.

2. Types of learning strategies:

– Rehearsal strategies: repetition with the final goal to memorize things and even learn them by heart. You know what they say…  “practice makes perfect” or even “repetition is the mother of skill”.
However, there’s a danger of “mindless repetition”, when much less cognitive effort is involved, which leads not to the (deep) understanding of the learning subject and proficiency in this or that field, but just to the mechanical memorization of things, which doesn’t really make sense.

– Elaboration learning strategies: requires a lot of thinking and cognitive activity from the learner. Involves changing of the learning material, such as summarizing, recycling, checking yourself by answering questions or solving the problems connected to this or that target sphere. It’s obvious that the learner absolutely needs to be self-regulated here.

– Organization learning strategies: just as the elaboration learning strategies, requires a lot of thinking and cognitive activity from the learner. Involves the graphical organization of the new information: tables, mindmaps, schemes, clusters, etc.

3. Strategy Proficiency: In order for any strategy to be successfully understood, adopted and used, the learner should first and foremost be aware of the existence of these strategies and know & understand which strategies to use, and when and why. Here’s where declarative (strategy definition), procedural (how this or that strategy can be used) and conditional (under what circumstances and in which conditions this or that strategy can be used) knowledges come into the picture. The combination of the abovementioned 3 concepts help the learner to choose the right strategy at the right time.

3. Ormrod, J.E. (2009). Basic components of memory in Human learning.

1. Sensory, working and long-term memories.

Sensory memory -> short duration: Iconic (visual) – approximately 2-4 seconds & Echoic (audial) – approximately 3 sec

Working memory – the “thinking” phase; the procession of information takes place here – planning, problem solving, decision making, attention control, etc. Working memory is limited, but it can be trained and enhanced via the usage of special excercises/strategies. The functioning of working memory is affected by 3 processes: organising the information (which provides the ability to store more information in the working memory), information retrieval (finding and bringing out the necessary in this or that situation from the working memory) and rehearsal (repetition of the stored in the working memory information in order to keep it alive and well and not to lose either all or bits of it).

Long-term memory: considered to have an unlimited capacity and deeply interwoven elements, which means that the information stored in the long-term memory is formed of elements either closely or slightly connected  to each other and dependant on each other. Only the carefully processed and digested information can make it to the long-term memory. Due to the amount of information stored in there, it usually takes much more time to retrieve the necessary information from there if we compare it to the similar processes in the context of the short-term memory.

2. Processing and customizing. If you want to keep this or that information at hand in your memory, process, customize and encode it. In other words, make it your own. Logically chunking bits of information or customization & encoding (summarizing the information in your own words while having the deep understanding of what you’re trying to memorize or logically connecting the new information to the information already available) are good techniques.

3.  Attention and working memory.

Attention is the phenomenon which has the direct influence on the received information’s “fate”: the more attention we pay – the more chances the information has to make it to either the short-term or working memory; if we don’t pay any attention at all, we would be hardly able to recall the information received at that time in the future – as the well-known saying suggests, in at one ear and out at the other.

Attention is a tricky thing. When we’re treated by the huge stream of information at the same time (be it the lecture at the Uni or the long conversation or dialogue you happen to follow), we automatically pay more attention to the things familiar to us or to the stuff which is somehow related to those things familiar to us. In other words, we’re most likely to remember the information related to our “prior knowledge” and forget the information totally new to us.

However, there are ways not to lose attention and memorize the information better. Self-regulating your learning and keeping yourself interested can’t be the bad ideas here. Also, the breaks should be present: it’s impossible to keep the high level of attention for a long time, especially when the information is complicated and requires a lot of effort to understand and digest; however, the breaks don’t always denote the rest or absence of cognitive activity – it can also include the changes of pace in learning – for example, answering the questions on what the students have just went through and were trying to memorize before proceeding to the other part of information which is supposed to be learned and memorized. Overworking can never bring any good.

ICE-note YKSI: It’s all about practice!

Some people sat that it’s all about practice if you want to be good at something. To my mind, they are quite right and there are not too many arguments against it. But some people equate practice to reeharsal. So can practice involve only the usage of the so-called rehearsal learning strategies? 

To my mind, the answer’s definitely NO. I think that the rehearsal strategies are very useful and you can’t really learn stuff without using them at some point, but the thing is that they should always be used together with elaboration and organization learning strategies, because those 2 aim for the understanding of the studied material and its modification or customization so that we can better memorize and digest it; in other words, more intended cognitive activity is involved. Mechanical repetition is never good, it might work for some time (for example, to pass the exam or write some paper), but afterwards you will most likely use the chunks of information and the data left in your head will be corrupted, partial and worthless.

Even in spheres like music the “rehearsal” term is used not to simply denote the mechanical memorization. In order to really play this or that part of music, you should not only memorize your parts, but also make them a bit your own and treat them with your own playing style (because that’s when you hopefully sound the best; if it’s not the case, you simply need to give it more effort, time and practice) and, of course, to work as a team with the other people you play with, if you’re more than one – without overplaying or competing for the place in spotlight with each other, but aiming to complement each other and create one single picture together. It’s not easy to do, but it’s totally worth it. So yeah, it’s all about practice as long as you monitor, control and evaluate what you’re doing any why.

ICE-note KAKSI: An attic full of junk.

Arthur Conan Doyle

“I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

― Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet

The quote above was issued from Arthur Conan Doyle’s pen, but presented to the reader as one-of-a-kind detective genius Sherlock Holmes’s monologue. So, is the author right?

I think that it’s as true as it can possibly be. Our memory and our brain are the powerful tools, but, just as any other tool, they need good care and maintenance. And we need to know how to organize stuff in there and how to create the optimal working environment for the abovementioned tools. Is it easy to do? No, it’s not. Is it possible? I do believe it is. Do many people succeed in it? Not at all. Do many people really try to succeed? Absolutely not.

I think the problem is that we overload our brains with the information we don’t really need. Every day we throw in piles of junk in there and bits of these piles stay there for good, occupying the place which could have been used for something way more useful to us personally. We listen to the pointless conversations we’re not really interested in, pay attention to advertisements and eye-catching articles in the yellow press and Internet, get stuck in our own everyday routines and find ourselves doing things we don’t really enjoy doing or not enjoy doing anymore. That leads to our brain’s degradation and to the limitations of our memory capacity. Instead of having the “organized toolkit” in our heads, we have the unorganized chaos, which prevents us from remembering things when we really need them. 

I guess we all need our own strategies to first clean the junk out from our heads and then not to let the same things happen again. Of course it’s easier said than done, but it’s absolutely worth a try. Cheers for the inspiration, Sherlock!

P.S. If it’s ok, I won’t again and still include the “goal setting” and “reflection” parts to my further posts, becuase if I do I will end up writing the same stuff [as I’ve written in my previous SRL posts] over and over again. My goals remain the same – to get and make sure I have the deep understanding of the topics and concepts under study and get some additional inforamtion on the way. As for the reflection, hopefully I will be able to achieve my goals and succeed – that’s what I’m always aiming to do and doing stuff to make it happen. Thank you 🙂 


Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting Effective Task Interpretation as an Important Work Habit: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning. Teachers College Record,  106 (9), pp. 1729-1758.

Weinstein, C. E., Acce, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. doi:10.1002/tl.443

Ormrod, J.E. (2009). Basic components of memory. In Human learning (pp.166-186). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. (CA)

COURSE VISION: Learning theory and pedagogical use of ICT

Self-regulated learning, collaborative learning and learning of expertise are the phenomena which have always interested me, because I’ve always felt that the abilities to self-regulate, collaborate with others and strive for expertise in this or that field is valuable for everybody & not only in the classroom or the learning context, but also in the everyday lives. 

For me the goals of that course were to clearly understand all of the abovementioned concepts and to be able to clearly see both the similarities and the differences between them. “Learning theory and pedagogical use of ICT” course helped me to achieve all of it and then some.

Probably the biggest part of the course was the collaborative group work, the outcome of which was supposed to be the science book. It’s never easy to work collaboratively, but it’s always a valuable experience. I’m thankful to each and everyone of my team members, I’ve learned a lot 🙂

We’ve also thought that it won’t be too good to leave the book we’ve made as an e-book only and to have it available only “in the cloud” considering the amount of effort was put into it, so I’ve spent some time on making a design for the paper version and on merging the whole thing together by hand. I hope everyone is happy with it 🙂 It included both the DVD with the e-version of the book for offline reading & the link to access the book online.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Now I guess we’re ready to head forwards. Looking forward to what’s to come next! 😀



The importance of motivation and emotions in self-regulated learning can’t be underestimated. These things either give us the strength and passion to move forward, develop and enjoy the learning process


…or become one of the reasons of our unwillingness, dissatisfaction and inability to do things.


In my opinion, the motivated learner should be a dedicated, devoted, disciplined and ambitious human being, who is able to successfully set goals for himself or herself, willingly self-regulate and aim for self-directedness. Besides, after getting the desired result the motivated learner shouldn’t stop and aim for even better results.  The concept of the lifelong learning is absolutely essential here as well.

Self-regulated learners should also understand the difference between the things which they have an influence on and the things they can’t influence at all. It’s especially important in case of failure – the learner shouldn’t blame himself or herself for the wrong stuff – for the stuff he or she haven’t had the chance t have an influence on or the situation he or she couldn’t change in any way. Wrong or fake stuff is never good!


But let’s see what the published articles say on the topic.

1. “Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges?” by Hanna Järvenoja and Sanna Järvelä.

In collaborative learning individuals work towards a common objective, which requires them to define their aims and standards to create and work towards a shared goal by sharing responsibility for the learning process (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). They need to be able to negotiate, compromise, reconsider, explain, and listen, participating in the formation of the group’s common ground and emotional stability. This includes a variety of shared processes, with individuals aiming to regulate the prerequisites for learning together, with regulation processes contributing to individual participation in the collaborative activity (Järvelä, Volet, & Järvenoja, 2009). These regulation processes go beyond individual regulation, because the group members regulate their motivation, emotions, and cognition together, through shared responsibility for the learning task requirements.

The paper/the study complements the conventional view of SRL with a social perspective by hypothesizing that students employ three qualitatively different regulation processes, each of which contributes to how students reach their goals. These processes are (Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2009):

1. self-regulation, which refers to the conventional model of SRL, in which the individual regulates her/himself;

2. co-regulation, in which the individuals assist one another’s regulation;

3. shared-regulation, in which some or all of the group members aim to regulate themselves together in order to reach a shared goal.

The role of emotions and their regulation have rarely been the main focus of the research, which is not a good thing, as the roles of motivation and emotions have been found to be central to collaborative learning (Thompson & Fine, 1999), which means that the motivation and emotions can influence collaboration in both good and bad ways. Challenges can originate from individual differences, such as conflicting goals between group members, different levels of interest (Ainley, 2007), interpersonal dynamics, different working and communication styles and the reasons external to the task (personal life or family difficulties, for example) (Volet & Mansfeld, 2006).

The article’s study used a situative approach to seek empirical evidence of socially shared emotion regulation in collaborative learning and presupposed that, in collaborative learning situations, controlling oneself may not be sufficient, since a need to control emotional experiences at the group level may also emerge. The aims were to establish: (1) what kinds of socio-emotional challenges students experience during collaborative learning, (2) whether students use self-, other-, and/or shared-regulation in these socio-emotionally challenging situations, and (3) how
group members interpretations of the group challenges and of the different forms of regulation vary within and between groups?

Based on the research results, we can point out 3 main points of the study:

I. Regulation of emotion at both the individual and group level is crucial for successful collaboration as the study proved the point that many students experience various socio-emotional challenges within and between the collaborative tasks and the emotions and the emotional regulation can either support the collaboration if the emotions are positive or, vise versa, build the walls and make the collaboration a failure, if the emotions are mostly negative.

II. There’s still a possibility to reach the personal goals in the collaborative learning/working context. The study showed that it is possible to reach personal goals and work successfully together even if the situation is interpreted from each individual’s own perspective. However, to make it happen the group members should also be able to share some processes together and, of course, self-regulate their emotions.

III. The personal approach to self-regulation matters. The study suggests that the students use different ways and approaches to self-regulate themselves and their emotions in collaborative working context. I guess the best conclusion here will be that the students should experiment with their own learning and find the best ways how to self-regulate themselves, as copying something what their peers do might not work for them.

However, the limitations of this study should be noted, as the analysis focused on individual selfreports and covered only student interpretations of the situation after collaboration. Therefore, it is not certain that this revealed genuine shared-regulation or lack of it.

2. “Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning” by C.A. Wolters (2003).

The aim of the article according to the article’s very own abstract is to emphasize regulation of motivation as another important aspect of self-regulated learning.


I. Regulation of motivation can be viewed as interdependent but conceptually distinct from other processes related to self-regulated learning including motivation, metacognition, and volition. Motivation plays a very big role in the process of self-regulated learning, as the self-regulated student should not only to be able to work with the information & digest it, regulate emotions, set goals and know how to work with others, but also to understand why is he or she doing it all, what’s the force that drives the whole process. Motivation is closely linked with the self-afficacy phenomenon


II. Students’ self-efficacy or beliefs about whether they will succeed are powerful predictors of their choice, effort, and persistence for academic as well as nonacademic activities. The article defines 3 of them:

– Proximal goal setting (breaking complex or larger tasks into simpler more easily and quickly completed segments);

– Defensive pessimism (when the student insists on the fact of his or her unpreparedness, lack of ability, or other factors to convince themselves that they are unlikely to complete a particular task successfully);

Efficacy self-talk (“You can do it!” and “You can make it happen!” can serve as a good examples of the popular phrases in this case; students engage in thoughts or subvocal statements aimed for influencing their efficacy for an ongoing task).


III. Strategies of the motivation regulation are very important to have, but everybody should choose their own ones which work for them. The article defines:

Self-Consequating (students’ identification and administration of extrinsic reinforcements or punishments for reaching particular goals associated with completing a task);

– Goal-Oriented Self-Talk (students’ use of thoughts or subvocal statements while they are engaged in an academic activity; different from simple statements that reinforce or punish particular behaviors: in this case the students think about the reasons they have for persisting or completing a task and the benefit they can get in the future if they succeed);

– Interest Enhancement (the usage of strategies designed to increase the students’ immediate enjoyment or the situational interest they experience while completing an activity; especially effective while coping with the boring and repetitive tasks and duties);

– Environmental Structuring (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, or, in more simple words, eliminating as many distractions as possible in order not to have reasons to put this or that task off);

– Self-Handicapping (the manufacture of obstructions before or during a task that make performing that task more difficult; this way the students, for instance, can blame their low score on a test to staying up late drinking with friends rather than on a lack of ability);

Attribution Control (students purposefully select causal attributions to maintain or increase their motivation for a task or for future tasks that are similar).


3. “Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance” by B.J. Zimmerman (2011). 

This article (again) underlines the fact that the positive motivational feelings and beliefs are advantageous and beneficial for the students’ self-regulation. However, the students have to make the whole thing work themselves and strive for the more effective learning.

The article, just as the previous one by Wolters, dwells upon the sources of motivation in SRL context:

– Goal orientation theories (performance goals (to gain the positive judgements and avoid the punishments) and learning goals (to gain the positive self-judgements and increase or strengthen the level of personal competence);

– Interest (situational and individual, for example);

– Intrinsic motivation (various type of rewards on students’ valuing of activity; in other words, it’s the motivation to engage in a behavior arises from within the individual because it is intrinsically rewarding; this phenomenon contrasts with extrinsic motivation, which involves engaging in a behavior in order to earn external rewards or avoid punishments);

– Task values (students’ perceived worth of a particular task);

– Self-efficacy (expectancies about personal capabilities to organize and execute courses of action; confidence in your capabilities makes you work harder and be more persistent, and, most likely, increases the possibility of success) & Outcome beliefs (results of one’s actions);

– Future time perspective construct [FTP] (students’ beliefs about subsequent outcomes of efforts to self-regulate; makes students work harder as the students understand why do they need what they learn at the moment);

– Volition (enables students to focus their concentration and sustain their effort in dealing with personal and environmental distractions).

However, in order to be effective, the whole process should be organized. The processes of self-regulation, according to Zimmerman, can also be viewed as the three-phased cycle (Zimmerman, 1998):



Self-regulatory processes are different for the skillful self-regulators and the beginners (Zimmerman, 1998):


Motivation and emotions are very tricky things to analyse. We, as the human beings, share one interesting feature – we’re changing throughout all of our lives; sometimes the changes are small and barely noticable, but sometimes the changes are huge enough to make an impact on our personalities and lives. There are numerous reasons for those changes – we, whether we want it or not, are to this or that extent influenced by everyone and everything we meet on our ways. We’re being changed by every event and happenstance in our lives – be it the tiny or the huge and the very important one. Bad things can bring good experiences and good things can bring the bad ones – sometimes it’s really impossible to predict what will influence us the most and how, but one thing is for sure – we will be influenced and we’ll change because of that. At least to some extent. At least a little bit.

That’s exactly why we’re destined to keep getting out of our comfort zones over and over again if we want to provoke and sort of push our self-development forward and aim for welcoming as many good things as possible into our lives. What I mean is that it’s not enough to go out of your comfort zone only once in your life to gain some serious and worthy results. I think that when you go out of your comfort zone your main aim is to sort of discover, explore and conquer the new territories and expand your personality, make it bigger and stronger. If you were successful, your comfort zone is bigger now, but if you want to move forward you have to go out of it again and try extending it even more.

But we’re changing throughout our lives. That’s why we need to constantly self-assess and self-regulate ourselves & to experiment with the ways we do stuff. Something that was effective a couple of years or even a couple of months ago may not work in “the here and now” anymore. I believe that we shouldn’t be afraid to confess it, leave it alone and move forward. Most likely it will be well worth it, even if it’s hard at first 🙂





I guess being honest with yourself can never do you harm. You can’t go wrong with it. And, in my opinion, honesty and sincerity with yourself is one of the most crucial parts of self-regulation. Either if it sounds kind of obvious, it’s not always easy to do.

I think that while lying to ourselves we’re breaking the inner core, the very essence of self-regulation. Self-regulation and self-direction are the things which can genuinely help you to get better, to reach your goals and, at the same time, have fun or at least not to feel terribly down on the way there. But what if the goals you pursue are nothing but fake & unimportant to you and the results you’re aimed to get don’t really make your heart go at least a little bit faster or to sparkle with the glimpses of happiness while thinking about the things to come?

That sounds like a massive waste of time to me. Sometimes you might want to listen to someone’s piece of advice, to please your parents and friends, to make someone proud, to try something new without knowing whether you’ll like it or not… but I believe that in all the cases there are we can be honest with ourselves. It’s our lives and in the end we have to think for ourselves. Because in the end [if we lied to ourselves and made some choices while continuing to lie to ourselves] it will be us to live with all of this. Of course, sometimes people have no choice other than to go through all the obstacles and all the bad stuff there is, but it’s so sad to see people who did this to them on their own volition. I’m not the one to judge here, of course, and maybe they’re even somehow happy that way, but, to tell you the truth, I highly doubt it. It’s never too late to change everything while you’re still breathing, though 🙂


And it’s not about being serious, strung up or too strict to yourself all the time, as someone might think. I guess it’s just about not wasting time on the stuff you hate, can’t stand, dislike or simply don’t care about. Makes sense, doesn’t it? 🙂

P.S. If it’s ok, I won’t include the “goal setting” and “reflection” parts to my further posts, becuase if I do I will end up writing the same stuff [as I’ve written in my previous SRL post] over and over again. My goals remain the same – to get and make sure I have the deep understanding of the topics and concepts under study and get some additional inforamtion on the way. As for the reflection, hopefully I will be able to achieve my goals and succeed – that’s what I’m always aiming to do and doing stuff to make it happen. Thank you 🙂 


Ainley, M. (2007). Being and feeling interested: Transient state, mood, and disposition. In
P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 147-163). New York:

Järvelä, S., Volet, S. E., & Järvenoja, H. (2009). Research on motivation in collaborative learning:
Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining psychological and social
processes. Manuscript under review.

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations – do students regulate emotions evoked from social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463-481.

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem
solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported coiiaborative ieaming (pp. 69-97).
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Thompson, L., & Fine, G. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and
Integration. Personatity and Sociat Psychotogy Review, 3(4), 278-302.

Volet, S. E., & Mansfield, C. (2006). Group work at university: Significance of personal goals in the
regulation strategies of students with positive and negative appraisals. Higher Education,
Research and Devetopment, 25(4), 341-356.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (4), pp. 189-205.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Relf-Reflective Practice (pp. 6). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge.


“What is SRL?” is definitely the main and the most important question of the first week of the SRL studies and of the first course’s lecture. I think I’ve already described the goals for this stage in my previous blog post, so I won’t repeat myself here. The main goals for me in brief is to understand whether my understanding of the SRL concept was quite decent or was a total failure prior to the course and in both cases strive for the deep understanding of the topic.

PLEASE NOTE that if you’re familiar with the articles already you might want to go ahead and scroll down directly to the ICE-notes, which are more of a personal rants 😀

After the 1st lecture by Sanna Järvelä, which I’ve truly enjoyed, it became very clear that the 21st century learning skills definitely involve the strategic regulation of learning in individuals and teams. Being metacognitive, we, the humans, are able to experiment our own learning while turning it into active and proactive processes, which are to involve monitoring, evaluation and regulation.

So, self-regulated learning (SRL) can be termed as a student’s ability to independently and proactively engage in self-motivating and behavioral processes that increase goal attainment (Zimmerman, 1998).

It becomes clear that the SRL is not only about applying the learning strategies and skills to practice; it’s the interdependant process of monitoring, controlling and adapting. And that’s exactly what the first article dwells upon:

1. Hadwin, A.F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially-shared regulation of learning.

The article presents the SRL as a circle of setting goals, monitoring, controlling and evaluating, which is related to the so-called SRL circle (Winne & Hadwin 1998), which has the task understanding (the one which activates the other 3), setting goals and creating the plans, applying the strategies & adapting and regulating your own learning. 

srl circle

So, to sum up, the whole process goes like this:

Identification of the problem // goal setting // making plans and procedure setting // on-the-go data collection // findings and original goals comparison // making changes to the goals, plans and/or strategies (based on the findings).

The good practical reasons to regulate our learning surely exist. Successfull regulation in learning:

helps to achieve better results in learning (or in pretty much whatever else you happen to do);

positively affects our wellbeing;

helps to build the skills helpful in our everyday lives.

However, probably the most importabt feature of the article is the comparison of the 3 ways of regulation of learning, which form 3 main points of the publication: self-regulated learning (SRL),  co-regulated learning (CoRL) and shared regulation of learning (SSRL).


1. Self-regulated learning (SRL)

SRL, according  to the article, refers to a learner’s deliberate planning, monitoring, and regulating of cognitive, behavioral, and motivational/emotional processes towards completion of an academic task or goal. While being grounded in social cognitive theory, self-regulation is guided by environmental contexts and conditions that promote individuals to adopt, develop and refine strategies, monitor, evaluate, set goals, plan, and adopt and change belief processes. Self-regulation occurs in independent, cooperative, or collaborative tasks and leads to the changes in the knowledge, beliefs, and strategies individuals carry forward to new tasks contexts and to changes in structures and conditions of the environment. The ultimate goal of SRL, according to the article, is independence or personal adaptation in regulatory activity. Also, one of SRL’s crucial points is the aim to deep task understanding right from the start. And no one should forget that possessing the certain skills is not enough to ensure the success of one’s self-regulation; the will and dedication are needed!

Research about self-regulated learning focuses on individuals’ planning, monitoring, and control of actions (behavior), thinking (cognition), drive, and self-beliefs (motivation), and feelings (emotion).

2. Co-regulated Learning (CoRL)


CoRL, according to the article, denotes the temporary coordination of self-regulation amongst self and others.

The co-regulated learning phenomenon is grounded in Vygotskian views of higher psychological processes being socially embedded or contextualized (Vygotsky, 1978) and Wertsch and Stone’s (1985) notion that these higher psychological processes are internalized through social interaction (McCaslin, 2009).

Typically, co-regulation consists of emergent interactions that temporarily mediate regulatory work: strategies, monitoring, evaluation, goal setting and motivation. Co-regulation is about social interactions and instructional contexts that are instrumental for self-regulated learning (SRL).

In the context of co-regulation, the SRL expertise arises through interaction – each of the participants has an impact, bringing different kinds of self-regulatory challenges and expertise to the emergent regulation.

Preferences for Interaction

Co-regulation occurs in the tasks which are designed to have the solo, cooperative or collaborative products.

Co-regulated learning is, according to the article, characterized by:

  • Emergent interactions;
  • Transitory, calibrated support in the service of self-regulation;
  • Mediational properties as guiding or influencing self-regulated learning through social presses or cues;
  • Promoting or empowering appropriation of self-regulatory skills and processes.

Co-regulation goals in the task context, according to the article, are:

  • Transition towards self-regulation


  • Coordination of independent self-regulation amongst group members.

Research about co-regulation focuses on interactions or dynamic processes between individuals and others (an individual, a collection of individuals or a broader cultural or societal influence) with respect to regulated learning processes.

Three categories of research about co-regulated learning:

  1. Focus on temporary mediation of regulated learning between individuals in the service of self-regulated learning.

Examines interactions and transactions in speech as learners move toward independent self-regulated learning.

In the carried out research (Hadwin et al (2005), where the teachers co-regulated learning by requesting information, restating or paraphrasing students, requesting judgments of learning, modeling thinking, and providing prompts for thinking and reflecting and the students co­-regulated learning by requesting information, requesting judgments of learning, summarizing, modeling thinking, and requesting restatements, can serve as an example.

The findings indicated that the students gradually appropriated self-regulatory activity to regulate learning independently, choosing relevant information for themselves and generating their own judgments of performance and learning. Interaction and co-regulation were the processes that supported learners as they began to appropriate their own self-regulatory processes.

  1. Focus on peers regulating other in the context of collaborative work:

The emphasis is on peers mediating each other’s metacognitive and cognitive actions, not on monitoring and controlling the collective process toward a joint goal.

The examined “shared metacognition” in the context of collaborative problem solving activities by  liskala, Vauras, and Lehtinen (2004) and Vauras, liskala, Kajamies, Kinnunen and Lehtinen (2003) can serve as an example here.

The findings demonstrated the importance of examining metacognition at the interindividual level, not just the individual level.

  1. Focus on interactions and processes through which social contexts/cultures afford and constrain possibilities for SRL:

An individual’s capacity to adaptively SRL is afforded and соnstrained by broader socio-cultural contexts not just by moment-to-moment interactions.

The notion of adaptive learning extends beyond individual self-regulation to the community of practice; the learning communities adapt and evolve as personal, social, and cultural influences come together.

Understanding со-regulated learning means having some data about how interactions support, press, pull, or create affordances for the gradual emergence of self-regulated learning processes, so the research about CoRL has been dominated by discourse data and observation of inter-individual dialogue and transactions between dyads.

Future research prospectives:

– to develop and extend methods and analytical techniques for examining CoRL;

– to examine solo and collaborative performance outcomes associated with co-regulatory processes.

3. Shared regulation of learning (SSRL)

SSRL, according to the article, is interdependent or collectively shared regulatory processes, beliefs and knowledge orchestrated in the service of a co-constructed outcome or product. The concept of this phenomenon might sound similar to CoRL, but this phenomenon’s focus is on joint formation of strategies and evoking discussions, which requires equity among members and the members sharing the roles of monitoring, processes of evaluation, adaptation, implication and others, which is possible only if each and every member is engaged into the working process. The regulation should be present on both the group and individual levels.

Research about SSRL focuses on what is shared or co-dependent in terms of SRL knowledge, beliefs, and processes and on co-constructed planning, monitoring, evaluating, and strategy regulation processes such as: shared task perceptions, shared goals, shared plans, shared monitoring and evaluation, and shared strategies.

2. Zimmermann, B. J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning.

On the basis of the article SRL is defined as metacognitive, motivational and behavioural active participation in one’s own learning process. Directing your own efforts and strategies to acquire and solidify own knowledge and skill and not depending on anyone watching over you (teachers, parents, etc) are the key features of the concept. 

The article’s definition of SRL assumes the importance of three elements: students’ self-regulated learning strategies, self-effi­cacy perceptions of performance skill, and commitment to academic goals.


1. Self-regulated learning strategies are actions and processes directed at acquiring information or skill that involve agency, purpose, and instrumentality perceptions by learners. They include such methods as organizing and trans­forming information, self-consequating, seeking information, and rehearsing or using memory aids (Zimmerman & Marti- nez-Pons, 1986).


2. Self-efficacy refers to perceptions about one’s capabilities to organize and implement actions necessary to attain designated performance of skill for specific tasks (Ban­dura, 1986).


3. Academic goals such as grades, social esteem, or postgraduation employment opportunities can vary exten­sively in nature and in time of attainment. In order for students’ strategic actions to be described as self-regulated, one must know their academic goals and perceptions of efficacy. 

The social cognitive approach to self-regulated academic learning, proposed by the article, three of the advantages, according to the author, are particularly impor­tant to educational psychologists: 1) It distinguishes the ef­fects of personal (self-) regulatory influences from overt be­havioral ones and can explain the relative advantage of each; 2) it links students’ self-regulatory processes to specific social learning or behaviorally enactive experiences and can explain their reciprocal impact; 3) it identifies two key processes through which self-regulated learning is achieved, self-efficacy perceptions and strategy use, and can explain their relation to student motivation and achievement in school.

3. Boekaerts, M. and Corno, L. (2005).Self-Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and Intervention.

This article dwells upon various conceptualisations of self-regulation that are prominent in the educational psychology research literature and the types of instruments that have been constructed to measure students’ capability to self-regulate. Intervention programs designed to help students regulate their affect, motivation, cogni­tion, and action in the service of goals are also discussed.


The system of self-regulation, according to the article, comprises a complex and unique set of functions located at the junction of several fields of psychological research (Carver & Scheier, 1990), including research on cognition, problem solving, decision making, metacognition, conceptual change, moti­vation, and volition. Obviously, each of these research domains has its own paradigms and traditions, which makes the things even more complicated. Each research community focuses on different content and aspects of the self-regulation process, addressing different components and levels of the one big whole.  

The article points out 2 types of goals the students normally strive for in the classroom context, as the classroom learning is not so linear as this model implies. Based on studies in mainstream psychology, Boekaerts (1997; Boekaerts & Niemivierta, 2000) proposed a model of SR in which students face two priorities in classroom learning: 1) to achieve growth goals that increase resources (e.g. students seek to deepen their knowledge or increase their cognitive and social skills); 2) to maintain emotional well-being within reasonable bounds (i.e. students try to look smart and protect their ego, or they try to avoid harm and secure resources). Boekaerts (1999a) found that favorable appraisals of tasks and opportunities for learning (e.g. feelings of relevance, interest, and efficacy) lead students to mastery goals and activities, whereas a sense of difficulty, disinterest, or stress leads students to focus on well-being. So, we should never forget that the self-regulation is a multidisciplinary, changeable and flexible phenomenon.


One more important feature of self-regulation is that everybody has his or her own unique self-regulatory abilities and the self-regulation “borders”. Doing the same amount of tasks and coping with the same amount of challenges require different degree of self-regulation from every individual. Besides, not all the students (or not all the people in general, if we are not focusing only on the classroom context) live in the same conditions and cope with the same amount of hardships and challenges in their lives. For example, a much stronger degree of self-regulation is required from the students who come from the problem family or who is being bullied at school. A lot of variables should be taken into consideration in the course of any SR- or SRL-related research and the accurate results are really hard to get, not matter how carefully and properly was the research designed and carried out.

The article suggests that the classroom education can lead stu­dents toward the adaptive use of self-regulation in conjunc­tion with conscious strategies, as the teachers and others in the extended social milieu provide models, serve as coaches, and establish environments conducive to self-regulation. However,the constraints in classroom and related environments that interfere with student efforts at self-regulation, such as conflicting goals, unproductive work habits and styles and inappropriate teaching methods, will always remain. 



To my mind, there are different levels of self-regulated learning out there, which are directly dependant on the personal level of motivation, dedication, interest and aims of one exact human being. The high levels of dedication and massive goals can surely be the source of strength and severe motivation, but, at the same time, the risk of burning out is a lot higher. The individual can burn out not only because of overworking and overloading himself or herself, but also because of the thoughts of how hard is this goal to achieve and how much work is still has to be done. These thoughts can attack us from inside and damage our ways of thinking and motivation beyond repair. So, again – it’s not the first time and certainly not the last one I write it in my blog – everything should be in balance. If the things were done wrong or not right enough for you, something that once was your strength can become your worst weakness and the thing to make you go down.  


I perceive self-regulation (self-regulation in learning included) as something deeply personal. Finding your own unique and effective way to self-regulate your learning (or whatever else you want to self -regulate) is an absolute must. This includes experimenting your learning, analysing your own personal characteristics, features and habits and accepting & confessing your own strengths and weaknesses. Absolute honesty required – especially in the “weaknesses” part.

If there’s the right place for stereotypes somewhere in this world at all, it’s definitely not here. Everybody’s different and that’s great. Someone might need the quietest possible room to read and study successfully and someone might need to crank up something what-someone-counts-to-be the craziest and the loudest music EVER and start playing the air drums along his or her favourite tunes while reading the scientific article. I think there’s no rights and wrongs here as long as your scheme works for you and positively influences your productivity without distracting you too much. It should bring the positive emotions into whatever you do to make you feel that you’re back on track and you’re heading towards the result full speed. More than that, if everything’s done right it’s possible to  be done with the work even faster and with even better and more creative results, I believe.

Unfortunately, sometimes people and especially teachers and parents don’t want to be flexible here and make their children or students blindly follow either some stereotypical scheme (like “BEN, TURN THIS DAMN MUSIC OFF AND DO YOUR MATHS HOMEWORK IN PIN-DROP SILENCE OR YOU’RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE THIS EVENING!”)  or the scheme which works or (even worse) worked for them ages ago (like “When I was your age, I always took notes in the separate notebook while reading the articles. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE SUCH A NOTEBOOK? HUH?! WHY ARE YOU SUCH A DISASTER?!) without letting another human being stick to his or her own paths. This can result not only in lower results and loss of time & motivation to self-regulate and strive for better results, but also in the emergence of phobias – for example, to experiment his or her learning in the future. Mental damage that is. Dangerous stuff. So, we’re definitely having a real problem here! 



After finishing the first SRL-related task, I think I can say that I’ve achieved my goals. I’ve got a confirmation that I understand the concept of SRL right, which was my main goal and got a lot of additional information.

As for the challenges, there was one big one this time – the proportions of the task. I’m quite used to large amount of tasks and I wasn’t going to complain anyway, but it’s worth pointing out that this one required quite a lot of time in order to ensure the genuine understanding of the topic, because we’re certainly not striving for any type of superficial, surface and shallow knowledge here, are we? I do a lot of stuff besides University and after finishing the first of the SRL tasks I’ve realized that I’d have to plan my time even better in the future in order to make sure none of my priorities suffer from colliding with each other.

So, anyway, until next time and thanks for checking this superlong post out 😀
(Did you read it all? Really? O_o)


The new chapter of the LET programme, the Self-Regulated Learning, is something that has to form the chapter of new visions of my blog. 

First and foremost, I have to understand if I at least to some extent understand the self-regulated learning phenomenon at the very beginning of the course and then to understand if I actually understand it right as the course proceeds. “To understand” is not only the key word of the previous sentence, but also something that sounds like a final goal to me. The final and quite straightforward goal described in simple words 🙂


The main aims of the these solo tasks, according to our course’s wiki page, are:

– To get to know the lecture material;

– To familiarize myself with the main concepts of the regulation of learning; 

– To learn how to apply the theoretical concepts to practice.

I believe that the self-regulated learning is not something new to me, as I do consider myself quite a self-regulated learner since secondary school – the time when I started to intentionally and consiously do and plan the extra work to be able to strive for the goals and the results I wanted to strive for. So, in addition to the abovementioned aims, I’d like to understand if I really possess the skills of self-regulation and, if there are any, find the ways to upgrade and strengthen them.

Besides, we need to read the lecture-related articles, define and describe three main concepts from each of these articles, write two ICE-notes to each of the lectures’ topics and post the whole package in our blogs.

To cut a long story short, a lot of things are waiting to be done, so let’s get ourselves together and again take a ride into the unknown. Hopefully, it will be a good one 🙂

P.S. Putting the list of course-related articles here for my own reference 😀


Lecture: Sanna Järvelä

Reading material:

Boekaerts, M. and Corno, L. (2005).Self-Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and Intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54 (2), pp. 199-231.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x/full

Hadwin, A.F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially-shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65-84). New York, NY: Routledge.

Zimmermann, B. J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 329-339.


Lecture: Hanna Järvenoja

Reading material:

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations – do students regulate emotions evoked from social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463-481.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (4), pp. 189-205.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge.



Lecture: Jonna Malmberg

Reading material:

Butler, D. L. and Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting Effective Task Interpretation as an Important Work Habit: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning. Teachers College Record,  106 (9), pp. 1729-1758.

Weinstein, C. E., Acce, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. doi:10.1002/tl.443

Ormrod, J.E. (2009). Basic components of memory. In Human learning (pp.166-186). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. (CA)


Lecture: Ernesto Panadero

Reading material:

  Dignath, C., Buettner, G., Langfeldt, H-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, pp. 101-129

Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 551-576. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12200

BONUS VISION: LET and Finnair! No escape!

Nope, the title is actually not a joke! 😀

Was superproud and surprised to see the LET and EdGlo ad with my good friend Sasha on it just several hours after saying goodbye to her in person in the latest (November) issue of the Finnair’s Blue Wings magazine, which is located literally in front of every seat onboard on every Finnair flight (even on the Finnair flights operated by Flybe, I’ve checked!) right in front of every passenger’s face, so no one can really escape it!

Up the LETs!!! 🙂 \m/




A world leader in international education! Yay! 😀