Premilinary ideas about the directions of the PhD Book.

1. Young Children’s Self-Regulated
Learning in Efficacious Interaction
Situations
M.Ed. Elina Määttä
- Together with AGENTS
Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit
Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education
University of Oulu

2. Young Children’s Self-Regulated
Learning in Efficacious Interaction
Situations
M.Ed. Elina Määttä
- Together with AGENTS
Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit
Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education
University of Oulu

3. SRL model & Self-efficacy
(Zimmerman, 2009)

4. SRL & Context
(Zimmerman, 1990)

5. Self-efficacy
• Means learners’ beliefs in their ability to perform
effectively and to succeed in a specific situation
(Bandura, 1982, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005)
• Is content/situation/task related (Bandura, 1994, 1997)
– Measurement accuracy (especially with children)
• Includes a capability level ‘personal efficacy’ and
strength of belief ‘confidence’ (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2003)

6. Self-efficacy
• Means learners’ beliefs in their ability to perform
effectively and to succeed in a specific situation
(Bandura, 1982, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005)
• Is content/situation/task related (Bandura, 1994, 1997)
– Measurement accuracy (especially with children)
• Includes a capability level ‘personal efficacy’ and
strength of belief ‘confidence’ (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2003)

7. Why we need this study?
Our Contribution
Efficacious promotes Self- influences
interaction efficacy SRL
Confidence

8. Aims

9. Study I: Triggers for the efficacious
interaction
I. Task involvement and quality of efficacious interaction
II. Triggers for productive activity and engagement
1a. How do off-task and on-task involvement occur in
collaborative learning situations?
1b. What is the quality of on-task interaction?
1c. Is on-task involvement related to the quality of
interaction?
2a. What are the different kinds of factors that trigger
changes in activity?
2b. What triggers students’ to engage in on-task activity?

10. Research design
N=6
9-10 years old
elementary school students
10 hours of video observations
(20 videotaped classes)
– Script working phases
– Roles

11. Phase 1
Task involvement analysis (alpha 0.986, kappa 0.922)
- Identifying episodes of group’s working
processes and task involvement

12. Phase 2
Interaction analysis (alpha 0.846, kappa 0.742)
- Analyzing the quality of groups’ on-task activity
Collaborative Cooperative
Student(s) helping and assisting Lack of shared understanding and
another student unequal participation
Joint activity characterized by equal Working task individually with no
participation and meaning-making sharing or joint meaning making

13. Phase 3
Trigger analysis (alpha 0.846, kappa 0.509)
- Locating the transitions between episodes
- Exploring reasons why students decided to start
or quit working on a task

14. Individual trigger Group trigger Contextual trigger
Consists of individual’s Consists of positive or negative evaluation, Consists of contextual factors
positive or negative comments, and actions from others. Social that affect students’
comments or actions that reinforcement can take the form of verbal efficacious activity either
affect one’s efficacious praise or criticism or non-verbal positively or negatively.
activity. communication such as smiles, frowns, and
gestures.

15. Results
• Criteria for efficacious interaction
– BEHAVIOR
– ENGAGEMENT
– ACHIEVEMENT
• Triggers for on-task activity
– GROUP PROGRESS TRIGGER
– INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS TRIGGER
– CONTEXTUAL TRIGGER

16. Study II: Confidence & success
I. Characteristics of efficacious interaction situations
II. Young children’s experiences of confidence and success
1. What characterizes efficacious interaction in classroom
situations where young children feel confident?
2. How do young children explain these experiences of
confidence and success?
3. Is there a relation between efficacious interaction,
confidence, and success?

17. Research design
N=24 16 hours of stimulated recall
6-8 years old (M=7.375) interviews
(n=57, approx. 2 interviews/child, 20
elementary school students minutes on average/class)
– What happened in the situation?
32 hours of video observations – What did you do in the situation
described in the video clip?
(40 minutes on average/class)
– What happened before this
– Whole group discussions situation?
– Small group activities – What happened after this situation?
– Individual work – How confident were you of
succeeding in the situation? Why?
– How did you succeed in the
situation? Why?

18. Data analysis
Phase 1
Identifying efficacious
interaction episodes
(alpha .927, kappa .859)
Classroom Efficacious
interaction interaction

19. Data analysis
Phase 1 Phase 2
Identifying efficacious Characteristics of
efficacious interaction
interaction episodes
situations
(alpha .883, kappa .795)
Classroom Efficacious
interaction interaction
Child-task
Child-teacher-task
Child-child-task

20. Data analysis
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Identifying efficacious Characteristics of Experiences of
efficacious interaction confidence and success
interaction episodes
situations (alpha .979, kappa .881/
alpha .927, kappa .859)
Classroom
interaction
Efficacious
interaction
Child-task
Child-teacher-task Confidence Success
Child-child-task
High Well
Moderate Poorly
Low
Task related factors
Previous experiences
Feelings and emotions
Own behavior and actions
Feedback and support

21. Data analysis
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Identifying efficacious Characteristics of Experiences of
efficacious interaction confidence and success
interaction episodes
situations
Classroom
interaction
Efficacious
interaction
Child-task Confidence Success
Child-teacher-task
Child-child-task High Well
Moderate Poorly
Phase 4 Low
Relations of efficacious interaction Task related factors
contexts, confidence and success Previous experiences
Feelings and emotions
Cross-tabulations with χ²-test
Own behavior and actions
Effect sizes for χ² with Cramer’s V Feedback and support

22. Results
• Efficacious interaction contexts
– CHILD-TASK
– CHILD-CHILD-TASK
– CHILD-TEACHER-TASK
• Experienced confidence levels
– HIGH CONFIDENCE
– MODERATE CONFIDENCE
– LOW CONFIDENCE
– (NOT ABLE TO NAME)

23. • Reasons for confidence
– TASK RELATED FACTORS
– PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES
– FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS
– OWN BEHAVIOR AND ACTIONS
– FEEDBACK AND SUPPORT

24. Study III: Self-regulatory behavior
I. Young children’s self-regulatory behavior in efficacious
interaction situations
II. Triggers for self-regulatory behavior
1. What characterizes young children’s experiences of
success?
2. What kind of self-regulatory behavior can be identified in
efficacious interaction situations?
3. What are the different kinds of factors that trigger young
children’s self-regulatory behavior?

25. • Photo elicitation data: Experiences of success
– Succeeding by myself
– Succeeding with the help of an adult
– Succeeding together with others
• Video observation data: Self-regulatory behavior
with CHILD
– EMOTIONAL ELEMENTS
– PROSOCIAL ELEMENTS
– MOTIVATIONAL ELEMENTS
– COGNITIVE ELEMENTS
• Video observation data: Triggers that engage in self-
regulatory behavior
– INDIVIDUAL TRIGGER
– PEER TRIGGER
– CONTEXTUAL TRIGGER

26. Study IV: Efficacious profiles
• According to MASCS
– HIGH ACHIEVERS
– LOW ACHIEVERS
• According to Confidence
– HIGHLY CONFIDENT
– (MODERATELY) CONFIDENT
– NOT CONFIDENT
• Comparison between the two

27. Heidi Happonen

28. In conclusion…
• Efficacious interventions
• Exploring triggers and how they work
• New methodological approach
– Video vs. Photo as a stimulus
– Researcher vs. Child
Heidi Happonen

29. Heidi Happonen

30. Discussion
• Need any clarifications?
• Is there enough?
• Any ideas for studies III
and IV?
• Should we consider
different approaches to
analysis?
Thank you!!
Heidi Happonen