Providing Different Types of Feedback for Self-Regulated Learning for Students with Special Needs

by Nithiyah Sokumaran

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is metacognition involving skills such as planning, monitoring and evaluation, which is consciously controlled and assessable. SRL can also often be tacit. It includes self-generated thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards “learning that is self-directed, intrinsically motivated, and under the deliberate, strategic control of the learner” (Baker & Cerro, 2000, p. 101). These SRL skills, in Zimmerman’s Cyclical Phases Model of SRL, may be challenging for students with mild or advanced intellectual disability.

Self-regulated learning (SRL) in the SEN context

In special education, teachers often assume that SRL is the self-regulation of emotions and behaviour alone. In the special educational needs (SEN) context, students are often thought to have reactive instead of proactive SRL behaviours (Buzza & Dol, 2015). Proactive SRL behaviours involve, for example, students analysing their tasks, setting effective goals, activating, altering and sustaining specific learning practices (Zimmerman, 2008). Reactive SRL means that they depend on perhaps undesired outcomes and then modify their learning behaviours, using information from these outcomes and any external feedback. It is then too late to inform and modify behaviours. 

Zimmerman’s (2002) model of SRL

Zimmerman’s (2002) model describes SRL as a cyclical model composed of three phases: forethought, performance and self-reflection. The three phases are sequential, in that information from one phase can input to another in a cyclical nature. It differentiates between phases before, during, and after learning in academic settings.

The forethought phase involves task analysis and motivation of expectations, interests or goal orientations that affect self-motivation beliefs before learning takes place. This affects the actions students take during the performance phase. The performance phase occurs during action and implementation of learning. Students engage in self-control processes like selection and use of various methods or strategies in order to complete the task. Also, processes of self-observation, such as self-monitoring or self-talk and self-recording of causes, effects and one’s own performance take places in this phase (Zimmerman, 2002).

The self-reflection phase is the final phase that occurs after a learning task. It consists of self-judgment and self-reactions related to one’s performance. Students engage in comparisons of one’s performance against a particular own, prior standard or peer standard to form self-judgments. These influence feelings of self-satisfaction and self-reactions.  Defensive responses may also result from these reactions to protect one’s self image, reduce effort or engage in adaptive behaviours such as adjusting strategy use. These self-reflection processes subsequently affect the next cycle of learning. Beginning again in the forethought phase, future motivations and the planning of strategies for success are influenced by previous experiences in a cyclical manner (Zimmerman, 2002).

Zimmerman’s (2002) model of SRL, using the social constructivist approach, can explain how social influences from the learning environment can provide supports for self-directedness. As such, feedback can be used as support and guidance for SRL, especially for students with SEN.

Different types of feedback

Feedback in the learning environment provides scaffolds for students to analyse their learning processes and engage in higher order thinking (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). It helps students to adapt skills learnt to new contexts and to self-regulate their own behaviours. As such, teachers play a powerful role in the classroom, intentionally guiding students through the type of feedback they provide. Feedback can be an instructional tool and provide social guidance for students when they learn new skills. Students with SEN may need different or higher levels of supports in their learning compared with those in the mainstream.

Previous research has found that feedback outcomes are often mixed or unsuccessful (Fyfe & Rittle-Johnson, 2016; Silver & Lee, 2007). This might be because different types of feedback given can influence differently the way students process, use and react to them. Different types of feedback are known as “feedback specificity” (Gan & Hattie, 2014, p. 863). Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) model specifies four levels: task level (FT), process level (FP), self-regulation level (FSR) and self level (FS).

FT provides task-related information that can may contain information that ranges from simple to complex, allowing students to gain knowledge about the task. Corrective feedback (CF) is one type of FT, providing information on how well a task is performed and confirming students’ correct response or result. CF can be targeted at all phases of SRL, informing students if they are correct or incorrect in their planning, decisions taken in their tasks and in their self-reflections.

It is not recommended to provide FS on its own. FS can comfort and support students (Gan & Hattie, 2014). Students may also enjoy receiving FS like “Well done!” or “You are smart!” which serve as positive affirmations and praise (Silver & Lee, 2007). However, it can also serve to distract student attention from task processes and self-regulation, resulting in positive and negative effects, depending on the way students perceive it. At the Performance phase, when students engage in their learning tasks, FP can help students in their strategy use, to invest effort and seek further feedback information. FSR at the Performance Phase can also target students’ self-monitoring.

At the self-reflection phase, FSR can provide information about performance outcomes, self-judgements of their learning and to engage in accurate self-evaluation. As such, FP and FSR can facilitate SRL at both the performance and self-reflection phases. FSR is usually provided by teacher questioning. FSR is provided in strategic questioning like “What are we trying to do here?” (Butler, Beckingham, & Lauscher, 2005). However, for students with SEN, responding to such questions may pose as a threat. It may be difficult to obtain detailed or elaborate answers. Perhaps, FSR is best presented as statements in the SEN context.

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of different types of teacher feedback on students’ SRL in a SEN context. It employed a mixed method, quasi-experimental with repeated-measures pre-test-treatment-post-test design. SRL was measured using an instrument modified from Tay’s (2011) self-report questionnaire, including open-ended questions based on the Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule (SRLIS) (Zimmerman, 2000). The SRL instrument consisted of 13 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale and conducted in an interview process. Forty-five student participants were from a SEN school diagnosed with mild intellectual disability from IQ 50 to 70 and/or autism. The students were explicitly taught SRL strategies over nine sessions. They formed two matched groups based in their reading levels and provided different types of feedback (DF group) or corrective feedback only (CF group). Table 1 shows the examples of feedback provided to the two feedback groups.

Table 1

Examples of Feedback

SRL Phase	Feedback Group	Type of Feedback	Feedback Examples
Forethought	CF	CF	“This is correct.” “You chose the correct goal.”
	DF	FP	“Is this important? Why?” “Explain. Why did you choose this goal?”
Performance	CF	CF	“You read correctly.” “You have used some vocabulary words well.” “You found correct details.” “Your answer is not correct.”
	DF	FP	How did you…? What steps did you….? “Describe. What happened (include details)?” “How did the man/woman feel when this (include detail) happened?”
	DF	FP (Seek further feedback information)	“You remembered to ask for help at the right time” “You remembered to ask the right person teacher or peer for help”
Self-reflection	CF	CF	“Your answers are correct.” “This is wrong.”
	DF	FSR (Self-monitoring & Evaluation)	“You found the 2 main ideas in the passage” “You are correct to say that you are able to attain full marks.” “You used 3 correct strategies” “You used self-check/self-correction”
	DF	FSR (Signal effort invested)	“You worked hard! “You have improved your correct word reading/fluency” “You have remembered to use the correct strategy e.g. match, highlight to find the answers” “You took the effort to ask for help”

 

What is the impact of different types of feedback on SRL?

Post-test SRL scores were significantly higher than scores at pre-test indicating that all students benefitted from the explicit instruction of SRL strategies.  These results contribute to SRL literature that students with SEN, just like their mainstream counterparts, benefit significantly from explicit SRL instruction. Therefore, teachers can explicitly engage in exemplary modelling of SRL strategies such as:

•  setting goals and targets for process and outcomes
• brainstorming ideas, with links with prior knowledge
• rereading passages and discussion
• highlighting main idea and details
• highlighting clues that show reasons for main problems in the story
• matching question to answer
• self-checking answers
• self-monitoring progress through visual checklists

 

Although comparisons of SRL scores between the DF and CF groups at post-test were not significant, analyses of student assignments and post-intervention interviews revealed qualitative differences.

The present study fills the gap in lack of studies connecting SRL and feedback in how feedback can influence students’ motivation and affect, as such, student volition in their learning. The findings were that:  

• Students provided DF were more self-aware of targets and details of strategies while those given CF were focused on finding correct answers.
• Students provided DF were more aware of reasons for goals. This was also for those of high reading level given CF.
• Students provided DF were motivated by challenge and effort invested in learning task while those given CF were motivated to engage in compensatory activities like helping friends.
• Students provided DF produced better quality of work in strategy use in assignments, such as note-writing.
• Students provided DF exhibited more accurate strategy use and took steps towards mastery while those given CF mentioned using strategy to find correct answers.
• Students provided DF mentioned investing effort in coping with difficult task, low reading level given CF. Those given CF of high reading level were motivated by affect and mood like keeping calm and comfortable.
• Students provided DF were more self-aware of self-checking strategies while those given CF appeared uncertain if they are correct
• Students provided DF were self-reflected on strategy use.
• Students provided DF were self-aware of corrections for learning and personal development while those given CF, of high reading level, stated expected behaviours and wait for external cues to complete task such as corrections.
• Students provided DF were cited own abilities for obtaining correct answers. Those given CF, of high reading level, stated external reasons like luck or following expected behaviours for feelings of self-satisfaction.

 

These findings indicate advantages in providing DF, especially in will and affect towards learning and volition in persisting in learning tasks. These findings have implications for teachers to target their feedback for learning at each SRL phase.

Feedback intervention strategies for teachers

• Teachers can target feedback towards SRL at each phase.  
• Teachers can provide process-level feedback (FP) and indicate importance of goals to aid constructive self-reflection at the Forethought phase.Teachers can combine different types of feedback, FP and FSR in addition to CF as a form of scaffolding or social guidance.
• Teachers can use feedback scripts specially simplified in language for students with SEN.
• Teachers can provide feedback for self-monitoring including the use of self-recording for visual tracking of progress.
• Teachers can include strategy-value information that can guide students in correcting their strategy use and in engaging in self-corrections at the Performance phase.
• Teachers can provide feedback for emotional challenges and volitional strategies to guide students in controlling and direct their mental processes, especially in coping with their affect  and motivation towards tasks they sense as difficult.
• Teachers can provide scaffolding hints like “You should be able to” or a recording sheet that can signal to students their emotions and motivation to help make an abstract concept like effort become more concrete and visually observable.
• Teachers can provide feedback to adjust their self-efficacy judgements to be more accurate and provide accurate attributions for their learning.

In conclusion, students with SEN can also learn to engage in proactive behaviours to be agentic learners. Teachers can help facilitate students’ SRL through explicit, exemplary modelling of SRL strategies. They can provide quality feedback practices that can act as scaffolding and guidance targeted towards SRL, such as strategy use and self-monitoring.

Acknowledgement

This article is a summary of my dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Education (Curriculum and Teaching) at National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. I express my sincerest and heartfelt gratitude to my research supervisor, Dr Tay Hui Yong, for her guidance, support and patience throughout my learning journey and for going the extra mile in looking for further opportunities to share my learning.

Suggested citation:

Sokumaran, N. (2021). Providing different types of feedback for self-regulated learning for students with special needs. Assessment for All Learners (AfAL) Bulletin, July 2021. https://assessmentforall.blogspot.com/search/label/Featured

References

Baker, L., & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–146). Buros Institute. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/burosmetacognition/4

Butler, D. L., Beckingham, B., & Lauscher, H. J. N. (2005). Promoting strategic learning by eighth‐grade students struggling in mathematics: A report of three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 156-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00130.x

Buzza, D. C., & Dol, M. (2015). Goal setting support in alternative math classes: Effects on motivation and engagement. Exceptionality Education International, 25(1), 35-66. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol25/iss1/3

Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2016). Feedback both helps and hinders learning: The causal role of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 82–97.

https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000053

Gan, M. J., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861-878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 25-49. Retrieved from: http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/2007v6n1art.pdf

Tay, H. Y. (2011). The use of self-regulated learning in authentic assessments. Unpublished PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909