• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Assessment of preservice physical education teacher education (PETE) students' self-regulation: Implications for teacher foundational enhancement

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Terry D Olson
Abstract:
The purpose of this quantitative dissertation was to examine factors determining self-regulation of pre-service physical education teacher education (PETE) students. There is a gap in the literature on self-regulatory capabilities of pre-service teachers and how they self-regulate their learning. Self-regulation theory, the foundation of this study, holds that the better one is at self-regulation, the better one is able to attain his or her goals. This research examined whether a relationship exists between pre-service physical education teachers' self-regulation, goal-setting, strategy implementation, and strategy monitoring as a function of gender, year in program, current GPA, anticipated GPA upon graduation, and weekly study time. The relationship between variables was examined by implementing descriptive statistics and factorial ANOVA's. Pre-service physical education students at a major university in the southwest ( n =141) were given the Five- Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR) (Maclellan & Soden, 2006) to measure self-regulation as based on the social cognitive theory. Results showed there was a significant relationship between pre-service physical education teachers overall self-regulation and how much they studied through their academic week. Gender, year in program, current GPA, and anticipated GPA upon graduation were not factors as measured against self-regulation and its subcomponents (goal-setting, strategy monitoring, and strategy implementation). These findings indicate self-regulating pre-service teachers utilize an optimal amount of study time throughout a given week. Additional findings showed there was statistical significance in the interactions between the participant's year in program and GPA in that the lower the GPA, the higher the self-regulatory skills are. This indicates there is a plateau effect as students mature in their self-regulatory abilities while in their PETE program.

ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 4 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 5 Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 5 Research Hypothesis 1. .................................................................................... 5 Research Hypothesis 2. .................................................................................... 6 Research Hypothesis 3. .................................................................................... 6 Research Hypothesis 4. .................................................................................... 6 Research Hypothesis 5. .................................................................................... 7 Research Hypothesis 6. .................................................................................... 7 Research Hypothesis 7. .................................................................................... 7 Research Hypothesis 8. .................................................................................... 8 Delimitations ............................................................................................................. 8 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 8 Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 9 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2 Review of Literature .................................................................................. 11 Defining Self-Regulation ........................................................................................ 11 Problems in a United Definition. ................................................................... 11

x Commonalities in Definitions. ....................................................................... 12 Definition of Self-Regulation. ....................................................................... 12 Theories and Models of Self-Regulation ................................................................ 13 Social Psychological Perspectives of Self-Regulation. ................................. 13 Social Cognitive. .................................................................................. 13 Behavioral Self-Regulation. ................................................................. 16 Goal Networks. .................................................................................... 17 Personality Perspectives. ............................................................................... 18 Functional-Design Approach. .............................................................. 18 Cognitive-Social Perspective. .............................................................. 19 Commonalities in the Theories. ..................................................................... 20 Developmental Aspects of Self-Regulation ............................................................ 20 Self-Regulation and Childhood. .................................................................... 21 Self-Regulation and Middle-Childhood. ....................................................... 22 Self-Regulation as Function of Age and Gender. .......................................... 25 Self-Regulation and College Students. .......................................................... 26 Self-Regulation and Teachers as Students. .................................................... 26 Self-Regulation and Pre-service Physical Education Students. ..................... 30 Construction of an Expert Teacher. ............................................................... 30 Summary ................................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 3 Methodology .............................................................................................. 33 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 33 Approval .................................................................................................................. 33

xi Study Design ........................................................................................................... 33 Participants .............................................................................................................. 34 Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents ............................................................ 35 Pre-Service Teachers by Gender. .................................................................. 35 Pre-Service Teachers by Year in Program. .................................................... 36 Pre-Service Teachers by GPA. ...................................................................... 37 Pre-Service Teachers by Anticipated GPA upon Graduation. ....................... 38 Pre-Service Teachers Weekly Study Time. ................................................... 39 Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 40 Reliability. ..................................................................................................... 41 Validity. ......................................................................................................... 41 Procedures ............................................................................................................... 42 Administration. .............................................................................................. 42 Data Analysis. ................................................................................................ 43 Research Hypothesis 1. .................................................................................. 44 Research Hypothesis 2. .................................................................................. 45 Research Hypothesis 3. .................................................................................. 45 Research Hypothesis 4. .................................................................................. 45 Research Hypothesis 5. .................................................................................. 45 Research Hypothesis 6. .................................................................................. 45 Research Hypothesis 7. .................................................................................. 46 Research Hypothesis 8. .................................................................................. 46 Response Rate ......................................................................................................... 46

xii CHAPTER 4 Results........................................................................................................ 48 Analysis ................................................................................................................... 48 Research Hypothesis 1. .................................................................................. 48 Research Hypothesis 2. .................................................................................. 51 Research Hypothesis 3. .................................................................................. 54 Research Hypothesis 4. .................................................................................. 57 Research Hypothesis 5. .................................................................................. 60 Research Hypothesis 6. .................................................................................. 62 Research Hypothesis 7. .................................................................................. 65 Research Hypothesis 8. .................................................................................. 68 Additional Findings ................................................................................................. 73 CHAPTER 5 Discussions and Recommendations ........................................................... 79 Research Hypothesis 1. .................................................................................. 79 Research Hypothesis 2, 3, and 4. ................................................................... 80 Research Hypothesis 5. .................................................................................. 81 Research Hypothesis 6. .................................................................................. 82 Research Hypothesis 7. .................................................................................. 82 Research Hypothesis 8. .................................................................................. 83 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 85 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................. 86 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 87 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 89 Appendix A Survey.......................................................................................................... 90

xiii Appendix B University of Texas IRB .............................................................................. 94 Appendix C University of New Mexico IRB .................................................................. 96 Appendix D Informed Consent ........................................................................................ 98 References ....................................................................................................................... 100

xiv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Gender ................................................................................................................ 36 Table 2 Year in Program Listing ..................................................................................... 37 Table 3 Current GPA ....................................................................................................... 38 Table 4 Anticipated GPA ................................................................................................. 39 Table 5 Weekly Study Time .............................................................................................. 40 Table 6 Response Rate of PETE Respondents ................................................................. 47 Table 7 Descriptive statistics of OVERALL self-regulation and year in program .......... 50 Table 8 Relationship between OVERALL self-regulation and year in program ............. 51 Table 9 Descriptive statistics of goal-setting and year in program................................. 53 Table 10 Relationship between goal-setting and year in program .................................. 54 Table 11 Descriptive statistics of strategy implementation and year in program ........... 56 Table 12 Relationship between strategy implementation and year in program .............. 57 Table 13 Descriptive statistics of strategy monitoring and year in program .................. 59 Table 14 Relationship between strategy monitoring and year in program ..................... 60 Table 15 Descriptive statistics of OVERALL self-regulation and gender ....................... 61 Table 16 Relationship between OVERALL self-regulation and gender .......................... 62 Table 17 Descriptive statistics of OVERALL self-regulation and overall GPA .............. 64 Table 18 Relationship between OVERALL self-regulation and overall GPA ................. 65 Table 19 Descriptive statistics of OVERALL self-regulation and anticipated GPA ....... 67 Table 20 Relationship between OVERALL self-regulation and anticipated GPA ........... 68 Table 21 Descriptive statistics of OVERALL self-regulation and Weekly Study time ..... 70 Table 22 Relationship between OVERALL self-regulation and Weekly Study time ........ 71

xv Table 23 Overall Self-Regulation (Year in Program*GPA) ............................................ 74 Table 24 Goal Setting (Year in Program*GPA) .............................................................. 76

xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Overall Self-Regulation Interactions (ALLSCALE*Weekly Study Time) ...... 72 Figure 2. Overall Self-Regulation Interactions (Year in Program*GPA)........................ 75 Figure 3. Goal-Setting Interactions (Year in Program*GPA) ......................................... 77

1

CHAPTER 1 Introduction Research has been devoted to pre-service teachers in physical education teacher education (PETE) programs with the aim to improve the quality of instruction of future physical educators (Ayers & Griffin, 2005; Cole & Knowles, 1993; Hodge, Tannehill, & Kluge, 2003; Kirk & Macdonald, 2001). This past research has been conducted over many years across a broad span of topics. One of those studied areas is the concept of self-regulation. Self-regulation, as based on social cognitive perspective, is considered a multifaceted system that involves the interaction between behavior, self, and environment (Bandura, 1986). According to Cleary and Zimmerman (2004), self-regulated learners are said to be proactive learners who routinely incorporate various self-regulation sub processes (e.g., goal setting, self-observation, self-evaluation) with task strategies (e.g., study, time- management, and organizational strategies) and self-motivational beliefs (e.g., self- efficacy, intrinsic interest). In addition, it is assumed that these types of learners covertly regulate their academic behaviors and beliefs in three cyclical phases: forethought (i.e., processes that precede any effort to act), performance/volition control (i.e., processes occurring during learning efforts), and self-reflection (i.e., processes occurring after learning or performance). Thus, it is believed that those who have better ability to attain personal goals through the use of forethought, volition control, and reflection are, in fact, more self-regulated individuals. To ensure success of pre-service teachers involved in a Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program, self-regulation skills are considered a key

2

component in enhancing their ability to increase academic success and understanding of the multifaceted nature of physical education (e.g. motor learning, biomechanics, pedagogy, etc.) as a discipline. Upon completion of a PETE program, pre-service teachers have been placed in a physical education classroom where decisions on a regular basis must be made in the fast pace environment of students involved in physical activities. Although these individuals have had residency experience as student teachers, the student teaching experience may not have been of sufficient duration to understand the multitude of “situational experiences” they encounter. It often takes continuous hands-on experience to become an effective physical educator who is equipped with skill sets to produce necessary reflections about-action (forethought), in-action (volition control), and on-action (self-reflection). While students are engaged in the physical education classroom, in-service teachers must mentally multitask in areas like instructional modification, child safety, questions from students, etc. Thus, the teacher’s ability, or inability, to self-regulate multiple situations could drastically impact the decisions being made and thus the quality of the output. Their ability to self-regulate could ultimately decide whether modified instruction is clarified accurately in a timely manner or potentially whether children are injured as a result of an activity. Fortunately, the covert loop (forethought, volition control, and self-reflection) of self-regulation could be infused into the regular daily curriculum of the PETE program. College classes enforcing methodology of teaching could implement the self-regulation process while the pre-service teachers are engaged in peer lessons. This infusion of self- regulation could initially be accomplished at the beginning of the course when the

3

instructor dissects the phase structure and sub-processes of the covert loop. Within the initial skill lesson, the instructor may discuss how self-regulation is utilized through the use of clear examples and demonstration of its functioning. Subsequently, students will list their own thoughts and reflections under the same substructures of forethought (task analysis and self-motivational beliefs), volition control (self-control, and self- observation) and self-reflection (self-judgment and self reaction) as they occur to share with the class upon completion of the lesson. For an example, if a motor skill was being taught in a methods class, the pre- service teacher could verbally dictate via his or her own lesson plan the three phases involved in the writing process. The pre-service teacher could first discuss the forethought process of the skill by talking about how he/she set the goals for the students, what type of strategic planning they used, outcome expectation of the lesson, and his or her own personal self-efficacy of the skill and how it changed the instructional process. Pre-service teachers could also discuss their own volition control by identifying what they focused their attention on while the lesson was occurring, or even by how they self- instructed themselves as the lesson occurred. Finally, pre-service teachers could discuss their own self-reflection of the lesson by talking about possible causal attributions and overall satisfaction of the lesson as a whole. As a result, practice teaching and opportunities for pre-service teachers’ to learn and practice self-regulation skills during their academic career may be beneficial in enhancing their overall success upon graduation to a teaching role. Thus, PETE students must learn to adjust to these immediate ongoing demands as they enter the field. They need to adapt to the environment as it changes from one day to the next. More than ever,

4

physical education teachers need to be trained to utilize their cognitive abilities and be able to regulate what is occurring in front of them with increased spontaneity. Statement of the Problem Many issues surround future physical education teachers as they complete their PETE program and become in-service educators. One of these issues is the under- developed cognitive and self-regulatory ability of teachers resulting in decreased quality of physical educators’ abilities to effectively educate students they serve. Often, new teachers are not equipped with the necessary cognitive skills to reflect in-action, on- action, and about-action as it pertains to their classroom. They do not always have the necessary appropriate reflective practices to summate what is occurring or has occurred to the students. Consequently, pre-service teachers may not be able to accurately reflect as to how to change a lesson that has gone awry. To prepare pre-service teachers for such situations, more instructional integration is necessary to assist them to engage cognitively before they transition into in-service roles. Thus, research of pre-service teachers’ self- regulation is an appropriate means to analyze their cognitive abilities. Analyses of pre- service teachers’ self-regulatory processes will give better insight as to how they utilize self-regulation on their own and what practice they may need during the development phase of their academic career. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to assess self-regulatory learning of pre-service physical education teachers in a PETE program. Emphasis was placed on self- regulation’s foundational components of forethought (task analysis, self-motivating beliefs), volition control (self-control, self-observation), and self-reflection (self-

5

judgment, and self reaction) as it related to pre-service teachers self-regulatory abilities as assessed by a modified version of the Five-Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR) (Maclellan & Soden, 2006). Significance of the Study The significance of assessing pre-service physical education teachers’ self- regulation as it pertains to their teaching ability was to identify key cognitive strategies that assist in the students’ ability to overcome difficult situations while in a PETE program. The results of this study may assist in the integration of interventions to all PETE programs which emphasize pre-service teachers’ ability to self- regulate their actions to attain their goals. Research Hypotheses As a result of a gap in research literature, this study investigated the following research hypotheses with regards to pre-service physical education teachers’ self- regulation: Research Hypothesis 1. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in overall Self-Regulation as a function of year in program. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in overall Self- Regulation as a function of year in program.

6

Research Hypothesis 2. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in goal-setting as a function of year in program. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in goal-setting as a function of year in program. Research Hypothesis 3. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in strategy-implementation as a function of year in program. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in strategy- implementation as a function of year in program. Research Hypothesis 4. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in strategy monitoring as a function of year in program. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in strategy monitoring as a function of year in program.

7

Research Hypothesis 5. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in Self-Regulation as a function of gender. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in Self-Regulation as a function of gender. Research Hypothesis 6. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in Self-Regulation as a function of grade point average (GPA). H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in Self-Regulation as a function of grade point average (GPA). Research Hypothesis 7. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in Self-Regulation as a function of anticipated grade point average (GPA) upon graduation. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in Self-Regulation as a function of anticipated grade point average (GPA) upon graduation.

8

Research Hypothesis 8. H 0 : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display no differences in Self-Regulation as a function of weekly study time for classes. H a : Pre-service physical education teachers in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program display significant differences in Self-Regulation as a function of weekly study time for classes. Delimitations The following delimitations of this study: 1. Participants (n=141) were pre-service K-12 physical education teachers enrolled in a PETE program with the expectations of teaching upon graduation. 2. The modified version of the Five-Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR) was used to collect the data. 3. Data were collected once during the semester. 4. Voluntary participants were chosen by convenience sampling from K-12 PETE program at a state university in the southwest. . Limitations The following were limitations of this study: 1. This study’s generalizability is limited to pre-service physical education teachers enrolled in similar PETE programs. 2. The participants of pre-service teachers selected in the proposed study were from a convenience sample.

9

Assumptions The following assumptions were made for the proposed study: 1. The subjects of the study responded honestly and accurately to the questionnaire. 2. The questionnaire was psychometrically valid in measuring the variables in the study. 3. The questions within the questionnaire were understood by the pre-service teachers. 4. The answers given reflected the reality of practice. Definition of Terms The following definitions were used in the proposed study: Anticipated GPA: Grade point average (GPA) anticipated by the pre-service teachers’ upon graduation from the PETE program. Goal-Setting: One of three subcategories of self-regulation as assessed by the Five-Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR). Goal-setting scores are derived from the addition of the 15 questions within that category. GPA: Current grade point average (GPA) of the pre-service teachers. Overall Self-Regulation: Total added scores of the three subcomponents (goal- setting, strategy implementation, & strategy monitoring) of the Five-Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR). Pre-service Teacher: Undergraduate students enrolled in a physical education teacher education program with an emphasis on preparation for teaching K-12 public/private students upon completion of the program.

10

Self-Regulation: Self-generated thought, feelings, and behaviors that are planned and cyclically adapted based on performance feedback to attain self-set goals (Zimmerman, 1989). Strategy Implementation: One of three subcategories of self-regulation as assessed by the Five-Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR). Strategy implementation scores are derived from the addition of the 15 questions within that category. Strategy Monitoring: One of three subcategories of self-regulation as assessed by the Five-Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR). Strategy monitoring scores are derived from the addition of the 15 questions within that category. Weekly study time: How much time students indicate they study within a week. Year in Program: Category of undergraduate pre-service teachers indicated as freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior.

11

CHAPTER 2 Review of Literature This chapter covers related literature necessary to conduct the proposed self- regulation study. It is subdivided into an overview of self-regulation, models of self- regulation, and research on student self-regulation. Defining Self-Regulation Problems in a United Definition. Self-regulation research spans many disciplines, including social psychology and personality domains (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). Self-regulation has predominantly been studied in the social sciences (i.e., educational, organizational, clinical, and health psychology). Studies utilized self-regulation under different human functions, such as through personality, personal goals, behavioral aspects of human condition, or social cognitive realm of daily life. Researchers in the field of self- regulation have begun to break down the various perspectives taken by those in the field of self-regulation and have narrowed the focus to further understand the phenomenon of self-regulation. Boekaerts et al. (2000) stated, “we have not strived for genuine comprehensiveness and it is clearly impossible to cover the entire range of topics that constitute the phenomenon of self-regulation and do justice for each aspect” (p. 4). Furthermore, the authors stated, “it is clear from the diversity of the chapters in this handbook (The Handbook of Self-Regulation) that self-regulation is a very difficult construct to define theoretically as well as to operationalize empirically” (p. 4).

12

Commonalities in Definitions. Regardless of the self-regulatory model, most self-regulation theorists agree that self-regulation is a personal process of goal attainment. Although these overall categories are accepted by theorists, the problem often lies as to which category of self-generated thoughts, feelings, or actions should be emphasized over another. A current literature review suggests that the different self-regulatory models such as those representing the social psychology and the social and personality perspectives do not work in opposition of each other (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). Rather, each model represents a different emphasis depending on which scientific community is using it. Definition of Self-Regulation. Zimmerman (2000) refers to self-regulation as “self-generated thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (p. 14). Self-regulation has been mostly acknowledged and framed within Bandura’s (1986) Social Learning Theory. This theory is used to analyze human learning and self- regulation regarding reciprocal causations involving the triad of personal, behavioral, and environmental determinants. The underlying emphasis behind social learning theory is the interaction of the environment and the behavior of the learner and how it reciprocally influences thought processes. Historically, the students’ ability to self-regulate actions has been associated with willpower. Bandura (1986) hypothesized that a student with high levels of willpower is able to forego influences such as television and social events in order to attain a goal. On the other hand, Bandura (1986) hypothesized students who lack willpower will not work as diligently. Zimmerman and Schunk (2003) summarized this tenet by saying:

13

Students who rely on increased will power to succeed often make self-debilitating attributions especially if they view willpower as a fixed trait they lack. Failure to learn leads students to make attributions to inherent personal deficiencies, which is demotivating and self-handicapping. Thus, the practical application of willpower in the classroom was thought of as defunct and provided little guidance to teachers assisting in the self-regulation of their students (p. 445). Zimmerman and Schunk (2003) suggested that teachers and faculty can play an important role in helping students monitor their environment regarding their cognition and behavior, as well as how to utilize self-management and self-incentives strategies to increase their effectiveness. This may suggest that teachers assist their students in developing the capability to self-regulate personal, behavioral and environmental factors. This self-management is based on processes of self-observation of performance, the judgmental processes of one’s performance, and specific self-reactive qualities, which take into account the thoughts, feelings and actions associated with the final outcome (Bandura, 1986). Self-regulatory theorists suggest that if students have the ability to display this level of cognitive functioning, only then will they be effective in planning, executing, and attaining their goal. Theories and Models of Self-Regulation Social Psychological Perspectives of Self-Regulation. Social Cognitive. The social cognitive perspective suggests that self-regulatory behavior relies on feedback that comes from their personal affective, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral domains which are used to modify their strategies and behaviors when they

14

are initially unable to meet the demands of their goals (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). In general, self-regulated learners are considered to be proactive learners who incorporate various self-regulation processes (e.g., goal setting, self-observation, and self-evaluation) with task strategies (e.g., study, time-management, and organizational strategies) and self-motivational beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, intrinsic interest) (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). According to Zimmerman (2000), the social cognitive model of behavior emphasizes four hierarchal aspects of self-regulation: observation, emulation, self- controlled, and self-regulated. This hierarchy begins with social influences and ultimately ends with self-influences. In the observation phase of cognition, the learner is focused primarily on social modeling and verbal instructions associated with the task. Once the learner understands the social observations, emulation will then take place. This is the learner’s attempt to recreate and demonstrate the skill demonstrated by the teacher. After emulation, coupled with social guidance and feedback, the learner can then begin to influence his own learning through his own self-control. In this stage, the learner begins to internalize the skill, recreating and ultimately adapting it. The final stage in the social cognitive model relies on the learner to self-regulate, or adjust the skill to changing contextual situations. Consistent with Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, the social cognitive perspective of self-regulation also works from a three-phase covert feedback model (Zimmerman, 2000). The components include forethought (i.e., thinking before an action), performance/volition control (i.e., thinking during an action), and self-reflection (i.e., thinking after an action). It is assumed that if one has the ability to proficiently

15

utilize these three aspects of cognition, she will ultimately be able to regulate her own behavior and learning outcomes. This cycle is completed when the three components of this process impact the forethought phase of a future learning attempt (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). The triad of forethought, performance/volition control, and self-reflection can be further subdivided. Forethought, which is a precursor to an action, utilizes task analysis and self-motivational beliefs to assist in learning. Task analysis involves the important components of goal setting and strategic planning. These specific thoughts are used to design and develop plans of actions to accomplish a desired outcome. Self-motivational beliefs on the other hand deal more with the motivational aspects of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic interests, and goal orientation. To ensure the ultimate success of the goal, the self-regulated individual must be motivated and believe in success. In essence, successful self-regulated learners are mindful of the learning task and are confident in its success as they proactively set goals and plan accordingly for attainment of those goals (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). The second component of the triad, performance/volition control, focuses on the learner’s ability of self-control and self-observation. Self-control processes, such as self- instruction, imagery, attention focusing, and task strategies, help learners and performers to focus on the task and optimize their effort (Zimmerman, 2000). In addition, self- observation refers to monitoring one’s own performance through self-recording and self- explanation (i.e., keeping a journal). The third component of the triad, the self-reflection phase, identifies self- judgment and self-reaction as its key components. Self-judgment involves evaluating

16

one’s performance with its causal attribution against the end result, as well as self- monitoring information with a goal (Zimmerman, 2000). In essence, after engaging in a learning situation, sophisticated self-regulated learners typically evaluate their performance relative to self-standards (e.g., previous test scores), attribute poor performance to faulty strategies (i.e.,, their strategic plan), and will make strategic adjustments before the next learning situation (i.e.,, study for six hours rather than four hours) (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 539). Behavioral Self-Regulation. Unlike the social cognitive perspective of self-regulation which places emphasis on the environment as having the major effect of self-regulatory skills, Carver and Scheier (2000) have emphasized human behavior and emotion as major underlying factors of self-regulation. According to the behavioral theory of self-regulation, human behavior is thought to be driven primarily by personal goals individuals set for themselves coupled with feedback control. Goals are assumed to reinforce learners’ behaviors, direct their activities, and give meaning to life. Thus, lack of goals suggests an inability to self-regulate. Like the social cognitive perspective of self-regulation, the behavioral view of self-regulation also places emphasis on the use of feedback loops. According to Behavioral Self-Regulation (Carver & Scheier, 2000), this feedback loop is constructed through the use of an input function, a reference value, a comparator, and an output function. The input function can be best thought of as perceptions or sensory information. Reference values can be best described as the goals people are interested in and whether

Full document contains 124 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this quantitative dissertation was to examine factors determining self-regulation of pre-service physical education teacher education (PETE) students. There is a gap in the literature on self-regulatory capabilities of pre-service teachers and how they self-regulate their learning. Self-regulation theory, the foundation of this study, holds that the better one is at self-regulation, the better one is able to attain his or her goals. This research examined whether a relationship exists between pre-service physical education teachers' self-regulation, goal-setting, strategy implementation, and strategy monitoring as a function of gender, year in program, current GPA, anticipated GPA upon graduation, and weekly study time. The relationship between variables was examined by implementing descriptive statistics and factorial ANOVA's. Pre-service physical education students at a major university in the southwest ( n =141) were given the Five- Component Scale of Self-Regulation (FCSSR) (Maclellan & Soden, 2006) to measure self-regulation as based on the social cognitive theory. Results showed there was a significant relationship between pre-service physical education teachers overall self-regulation and how much they studied through their academic week. Gender, year in program, current GPA, and anticipated GPA upon graduation were not factors as measured against self-regulation and its subcomponents (goal-setting, strategy monitoring, and strategy implementation). These findings indicate self-regulating pre-service teachers utilize an optimal amount of study time throughout a given week. Additional findings showed there was statistical significance in the interactions between the participant's year in program and GPA in that the lower the GPA, the higher the self-regulatory skills are. This indicates there is a plateau effect as students mature in their self-regulatory abilities while in their PETE program.