Activity Formation by Teachers of School Students’ Learning Strategies

Federal state educational standards for general education define the requirements for the results of mastering a general educational program (what to teach) and subject areas (where these educational results can be formed). However, methods, learning and teaching technologies for these competencies are not proposed. Despite of the obvious need to develop the self-regulation skills of learning, there are still no elements in the educational content that develop them. The article proposes a new approach to the design of the learning process focused on increasing motivation and developing school students’ learning strategies. The approach is based on a study conducted in 10 Moscow schools among students 8-10 grades an their teachers. The data was collected through a survey and focus groups. The purpose of this study was to identify the relation between the development of learning strategies and teachers' methods aimed at the formation of these learning skills. Paradoxical results were obtained: the less attention teachers pay to the teaching of learning strategies, the more they are developed among school students. Paradoxical results have been obtained: the less attention teachers pay to the development of learning strategies, the more they develop in school students. Based on the results analysis, a model for the formation of school students’ strategies in modern educational environment.

1. Asmolov A.G. Kak proektirovat' universal'nye uchebnye deistviya v nachal'noi shkole: ot deistviya k mysli: posobie dlya uchitelya [How to design universal learning activities in elementary school. From action to thought]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 2008. 151 p. (In Russ.).
2. Voronkova I.V., Ulyashev K.D. Vzaimosvyaz' predmetnykh i metapredmetnykh rezul'tatov v «profile uchebnykh rezul'tatov» pervoklassnikov [Interconnection between Subject and Meta-Subject Results in the "Profile of Learning Outcomes" of First-Graders]. Psikhologopedagogicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological-Educational Studies, 2018. Vol. 10, no. 4. pp. 44–52. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2018100405. (In Russ.).
3. Davydov V.V. Teoriya razvivayushchego obucheniya: monografiya [Theory of Developmental Learning: monograph]. Moscow: Intor, 1996. 544 p. (In Russ.).
4. R.N. Buneev [i dr.] Diagnostika metapredmetnykh i lichnostnykh rezul'tatov nachal'nogo obrazovaniya [Diagnostics of meta-subject and personal results of primary education]. In R.N. Buneev (eds.). Moscow: Balass, 2012. 48 p. (In Russ.).
5. Zav'yalova O.A. Metapredmetnye vidy deyatel'nosti v obuchenii: s chego nachat' uchitelyu: monografiya [Meta-subject activities in teaching: where to start for a teacher : monograph]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 2012. 125 p. (In Russ.).
6. Zak A.Z., Sorokova M.G. Diagnostika sformirovannosti metapredmetnykh kompetentsii u pyatiklassnikov [Diagnosing the Formation of Metasubject Competences among Fifth-graders]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological-Educational Studies, 2019. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 11–21. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2019110202. (In Russ.).
7. Leont'ev A.N. Lektsii po obs hche ps ikhologii: Ucheb. posobie dlya studentov vuzov po spets. «Psikhologiya» [Lectures in General Psychology: Textbook for university students on special. "Psychology"]. In D.A. Leont'ev, E.E. Sokolova (eds.). Moscow: Smysl, 2000. 509 p. (In Russ.).
8. Rubinshtein S.L. Izbrannye filosofsko-psikhologicheskie trudy. Osnovy ontologii, logiki i psikhologii [Selected philosophical and psychological works. Fundamentals of ontology, logic and psychology]. Moscow: Nauka, 1997. 463 p. (In Russ.).
9. Tsukerman G.A. Sovmestnaya uchebnaya deyatel'nost' kak osnova formirovaniya umeniya uchit'sya: Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora psikhologicheskikh nauk [Joint educational activity as the basis for the formation of the ability to learn: The dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Psychological Sciences]. Moscow, 1992, p. 342. (In Russ.).
10. Chernyshova N.A. Obuslovlennost' vybora shkol'nikami strategii ucheniya kul'turnym kapitalom sem'i [The conditionality of schoolchildren's choice of teaching strategies by the cultural capital of the family]. Standarty i monitoring v obrazovanii = Standards and monitoring in education, 2018. Vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 13–19. DOI:10.12737/article_5c065db0e6c8d8.07262085. (In Russ.).
11. Chernyshova N.A. Strategii samoreguliruemogo ucheniya i formirovanie navykov ucheniya na protyazhenii vsei zhizni v trudakh amerikanskikh uchenykh [Self-regulatory learning strategies and the formation of lifelong learning skills in the works of American scientists]. Pedagogika = Pedagogy, 2019, no. 1, pp. 56–64. (In Russ.).
12. El'konin D.B. Psikhologiya obucheniya mladshego shkol'nika [The psychology of teaching a younger student]. Moscow: Znanie, 1974. 64 p. (In Russ.).
13. Erik D.K. Proektirovanie uchebnogo protsessa: sozdanie vysokoeffektivnykh obrazovatel'nykh sred dlya razvitiya navykov samoregulyatsii [Learning Design: Creating Powerful Learning Environments for Self-Regulation Skills]. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow, 2019. No. 4, pp. 30–46. DOI:10.17323/1814-9545-2019-4-30-46. (In Russ.).
14. Ardura D., Ga lán A. The interplay of learning approaches and self-efficacy in secondary school students’ academic achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 2019. Vol. 41, no. 13, pp. 1723–1743. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2019.1638981.
15. Lazarus R.S. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. 466 p.
16. Leong K.E. et al. Exploring the Relationship between Motivation and Science Achievement of Secondary Students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2018. Vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2243–2258.
17. McCarthy B. A tale of four learners: 4MAT's learning styles. Educational Leadership, 1997. Vol. 54, pp. 46–51.
18. Muelas A., Navarro E. Learning strategies and academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015. Vol. 165, no. 6, pp. 217–221. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.625.
19. Murphy L. Coping vulnerability and residence in childhood. Coping and adaptation. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Vol. 13, p. 93.
20. Panadero E. A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in psychology, 2017. Vol. 8, pp. 1–28. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
21. Pintrich P., Wolters C., Baxter G. Assessing Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning: Issues in the Measure of Meatacognition. Lincoln, Nebraska: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 2000, pp. 43–97.
22. Schraw G., Dennison R.S. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 1994. Vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 460–475. DOI:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033.
23. Sun Z., Xie K., Anderman L.H. The role of self-regulated learning in students' success in flipped undergraduate math courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 2018. Vol. 36, pp. 41–53. DOI:10.1016/j. iheduc.2017.09.003.
24. Weinstein C.E., Mayer R.E. The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock M.C. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan, 1986, pp. 315–327.
25. Weinstein C.E., Palmer D.R. User’s manual for those adminis tering the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, Florida: H and H Publishing, 2002, pp. 4–13.
26. Zimmerman B.J. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 2002. Vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70. DOI:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.
27. Zimmerman B.J. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Academic Press, 2005, pp. 13–35.
28. Zimmerman B.J., Martinez-Pons M. Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 1986, no. 23, pp. 614–628. DOI:10.3102/00028312023004614.