AwarenessFeedbackSelf-regulationAn integrating review of Butler & Winne (1995) and Endsley (2000)

Christian Glahn

Designing Technologies for supporting Workplace Learning requires a Generic Model of Learning

We have worked on a model onintegrating

technologies and learning processes

for a long time

Feedback and

Reflection are essential

Usually I present this simplified Feedback Loop

Experience Knowledge

Response

BehaviourActo

r

Monitoring / Assessment

Judgement / Reflection

System

It integrates Models for designing Technologies for learning

Experience Knowledge

Response

BehaviourActo

r

Monitoring / Assessment

Judgement / Reflection

SystemCognitionButler & Winne (1995)

Endsley (2000)

TechnologiesZimmermann, Specht,

& Lorenz (2005)

The models aremore complex than displayed in my diagram

Usually I talk about the technology side of the model …

This presentation is about

Reviewing the cognitive models

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback And Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 254-281.

Feedback and Self-regulated Learning

Concepts of Self-regulation• Outcome feedback• Task cues for performance expectations

(calibration feedback)• Cognitive feedback (internal feedback)• Validity feedback (process feedback)

– Task validity – Cognitive validity– Functional validity

• Motivation

Outcome Feedback

Calibration Feedback

Cognitive Feedback

Task Validity Feedback

Cognitive Validity Feedback

Functional Validity Feedback

Motivation

Reflective Practitionersas

Self-regulated Learners

Example

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals think in Action. London: Maurice Temple Smith.

Concepts of reflection

• Reflection for action*

• Reflection in action

• Reflection on action

* Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.

Revisit Schon’s concepts from a self-regulation perspective

Reflection for Action

Reflection in Action

Reflection on Action

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Endsley, M. R. (2000). “Theoretical Underpinnings of Situation Awareness: A Critical Review”. In M.R. Endsley & D.J. Garland (Eds.). Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (pp. ). Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Situation Awareness

Levels of Situation Awareness• Level 1: Perception of relevant information

– Being able to identify a situation

• Level 2: Comprehension of information– Understand the situation in context

• Level 3: Forward prediction– Understand the dynamics of a context

Situation Awareness in Teams

• Self-awareness within the team

• Peer-awareness within the team

• Awareness of the team as a whole

• Resource-awareness within the team

INTEGRATING THE PERSPECTIVES

Situation Awareness is about adjusting filters for cue perceptionand

identifying goals and appropriate strategies

Structuring interventions to improve self-regulation through increased situation awareness

The current challenge (in Salomo)

• Reduce errors• Risk awareness• Task alignment

http://portal.ou.nl/en/web/topic-mobile-learning/http://slideshare.net/phish108http://twitter.com/phish108http://delicious.com/phish108