responsibility for learning: students’ understandings … · responsibility for learning:...
TRANSCRIPT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING: STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDINGS
AND THEIR SELF-REPORTED LEARNING ATTITUDES
AND BEHAVIOURS
GARY MITCHELL ALLAN
B. Ed. Studies (USQ)
This thesis is submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education (Research)
Faculty of Education
QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Brisbane, Queensland.
Centre for Learning Innovation. March 2006.
iii
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: Personal Responsibility For Learning; Autonomy; Self-directed Learning;
Self-regulated Learning; Choice and Personal Decision-making; Intrinsic Motivation
This study investigated a number of important research questions that were
prompted by the existing literature relating to the concept of responsibility for learning.
Such literature has highlighted the importance of promoting personal responsibility for
learning to not only students as individuals but also to the direction of education and
pedagogy in general. The literature has also shown a broad concern over students’
apparent lack of responsibility as well as a lack of consensus over the precise meaning of
this concept. The present study addresses gaps in the literature by exploring the following
specific issues: firstly, What are students’ understandings of the concept of responsibility
for learning?; secondly, How have students reported their own learning related attitudes
and behaviours?; and thirdly, What are the associations between students’ understandings
and their self-reports? It was also intended that data collected for the first two research
questions would enable the investigation of year level and gender differences.
With a methodology based on a written survey design, this study collected data
from a sample of some 286 students from Australian schools in both the Primary and
Secondary sectors (comprising Years 5, 7, 9 and 11). The process of data collection
involved participants completing one open-ended question and two newly developed
Likert-type response questionnaires that incorporated 40 individual descriptive items that
were associated with six distinct subscales (i.e., Orientation Towards Schools and
iv
Learning; Active Participation in Learning Activities; Autonomy and Personal Control of
Learning; Initiative; Management of Learning Resources; and Cooperation and Control
of Classroom Behaviour). One scale (the SURLQ), along with the open-ended question,
measured students’ understandings of Responsibility For Learning and the other scale
(the SRLABQ) measured students’ perceptions of their own learning related attitudes and
behaviours.
The data pertaining to the first research question was analysed in two distinct
ways. Firstly, students’ responses to the open-ended question were analysed qualitatively
by sorting and tallying their original responses according to a determination of the themes
and descriptors offered. Secondly, the responses to the SURLQ were analysed
quantitatively by calculating the mean and standard deviation scores for all 40 descriptive
items and hence the six subscales. Similar quantitative statistical analysis procedures
were applied to the data pertaining to students’ self-reported learning attitudes and
behaviours (i.e., the SRLABQ). Reliability coefficients for the SURLQ and the SRLABQ
were also calculated. Descriptive data for the subscales of these two measures were cross-
tabulated by year level and gender to determine whether statistically significant
differences were evident. Cohen’s Effect Size calculations were applied to such
differences. Statistically significant interactions between these independent variables
were determined by Multivariate analysis of variance techniques. The third research
question was investigated by applying correlation analysis to the mean scores of
corresponding subscales and by calculating the differences between the same sets of
mean scores.
v
With respect to the first research question, it was found that according to both sets
of data, students’ understandings of responsibility for learning generally supported a
primarily behavioural perspective that emphasised a high degree of application to
learning and relating sociably with others in the classroom. Although the SURLQ data
also showed a greater acknowledgement of attitudinal components, it was noted that
according to data from the two questionnaires, students did not readily associate
responsible learners with being autonomous and having personal control of learning (as
does the literature). With respect to the second research question, it was found that
students reported themselves to be reasonably responsible learners as evidenced by the
moderately high scores collected in all of the six responsibility for learning subscales.
This finding led to the conclusion that the concerns expressed in the literature over
students’ lack of responsibility in the classroom are not perceived by the students
themselves. As the data pertaining to the third research question showed a reasonable
correlation between students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-
reported learning attitudes and behaviours, it was concluded that students were likely to
view themselves as responsible learners in a way that reflects their understandings of the
concept.
It was concluded that this research has important implications for all stakeholders
in education. Although this study makes a major contribution to defining and describing
responsibility for learning, it is evident that a lack of consensus in understanding between
key stakeholders groups (i.e., researchers, educators and students) still exists. The
divergence of outlook between students and various elements of the literature reinforces
the need for further research to be conducted to determine the relative acceptance of
vi
behavioural compliance (and/or prudence) in the classroom versus personal control and
accountability with respect to learning. It is also argued that such work would be integral
to educators having a clear and unambiguous understanding of responsibility for learning
so that the enhancement of this quality in students may take place in classrooms of the
future.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is most appropriate to acknowledge the role that various individuals and groups have played in guiding and supporting my efforts in producing this thesis.
In the initial phases of this study, I am indebted to Dr. Nola Purdie for providing a
great deal of direction in learning about the many components of the research process. Following her departure from QUT, Dr. Jan Millwater undertook to supervise my work and provided a positive source of direction and support. A great deal of my learning about the process of academic thesis writing itself, is due to the specific practical guidance provided by Prof. Campbell McRobbie over the last 12 months.
In the many instances where I needed to find and obtain particular pieces of
literature, I found the staff at the QUT External Library Services to be exceedingly reliable and personable. A special thanks to Pat Free, Tony McCall and Barbara Patrick.
While this study has helped me to better understand the important concept of responsibility for learning, it reflects the good work being shown by the staff and students of the Booroobin Sudbury Democratic Centre of Learning. Not only have these people supported my research, they are demonstrating to educators a clear direction for relating to young people and how schools can contribute to a civilised and sustainable future.
Finally, as an educator, I wish to acknowledge the many things I have been shown
about learning from the students who participated in this study and from those who have shared their classrooms with me over the years.
viii
ix
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: ____________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________
x
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT …. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …. vii STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY …. ix CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION …..1
Background to Topic …..1 Introduction to Relevant Terms …..3 Rationale …..7
Need for Research …..7 Significance of Study to Education ….12
Purpose of Study ….19 Research Questions ….20
Thesis Outline ….21 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ….23
Themes Associated With Responsibility For Learning ….24 The Attributes of Responsible Learners ….36
Teachers’ Understandings ….37 Researchers’ Understandings ….39
The Contribution of Self-Regulated Learning ….46 Students’ Understandings ….54
Summary of Current Understandings of Responsibility For Learning ….58 Additional Issues Associated With Responsibility For Learning ….59
Strategic Interventions Promoting Responsibility For Learning ….60 Limitations to the Promotion of Responsibility For Learning ….62 Genuine Responsibility For Learning ….68
Chapter Summary ….73 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ….77
Research Design ….77 Methods ….79
Participants ….82 Measures ….84 Procedures ….96
Data Analysis Procedures …100 Chapter Summary …104
xii
xiii
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS …107 Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning …107
The Open-Ended Question Data …108 The SURLQ Data …112
Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours …119 The Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning and Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours …127 Chapter Summary …130
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION …133
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning …133 Open-Ended Question Responses …134 Responses to the SURLQ …159
Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours …169 The Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning and Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours …176 Summary of Discussion …178 Implications For Educational Practice …180
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning …181 Students’ Perceptions of Themselves as Learners …185 The Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning and their Perceptions of Themselves as Learners …188 Recommendations for Classroom Interventions …189 Conclusions …199
CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS …203
Limitations of Current Research …207 The Data Collection Process …207 The Participation of Students …209 Conclusions …211 Future Research Possibilities …212 Determining Understandings of Personal Responsibility For Learning …213
Measuring Levels of Responsibility For Learning …215 Other Significant Questions …218 REFERENCES …221
xiv
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: …233
The Responsibility For Learning Inventory: Subscales and Associated Descriptive Items
Appendix B: …235 The Data Collection Instruments
Appendix C: …242 Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning: Open-Ended Question Response Themes and Frequency Totals
Appendix D: …244 Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire: Item Responses – Descriptive Data, rank Order, and Associated Subscale
Appendix E: …245 Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire: Item Responses – Descriptive Data, Rank Order and Associated Subscale
Appendix F: …246 Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire: Descriptive Statistics – all Subscales
Appendix G: …249 Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire: Descriptive Statistics – all Subscales
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 …82 Composition of Total Sample of Participating Students According to Year Level, Average Age, Gender and Class Groupings Table 4.1 …109
Total Frequencies of Thematic Categories and the More Prevalent Attributes Table 4.2 …113
The SURLQ: Descriptive Data and Position of Rank Order for Subscales Table 4.3 …121 The SRLABQ: Descriptive Data and Position of Rank Order for Subscales Table 4.4 …129
Corresponding Subscale Differences Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning and Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 …127 Year Level x Gender Interactions for the Initiative subscale
xvi
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter begins with a brief discussion of a number of relevant
issues in contemporary education that form the background to the research topic and a
clarification of the more significant terms used in this thesis follows. This leads to the
rationale which demonstrates the need for this research and a discussion of the potential
significance that the outcomes of this study have for a range of stakeholders in education.
These sections are followed by a description of the purpose of the study, which includes a
broad statement of the research problems leading to the specific research questions that
were investigated. The chapter then concludes with a brief outline of the structure of the
remainder of the thesis.
Background To Topic
The topic of personal responsibility for learning, along with the many issues and
implications associated with it, is being accorded greater significance by a wide range of
education stakeholders, including education theorists, policy-makers, school
administrators, teachers, and most importantly, the learners. Accordingly, within the
academic context, issues relating to this are reflected in the emerging awareness by
researchers of the enhanced academic achievement and performance benefits (e.g., Corno,
1992; Kerka, 1994; Whelan & Teddlie, 1989; Zimmerman, 1990) and the general worth
and desirability of this quality in learners (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990,
2
1993; Caffarella, 1983; Corno, 1992; West, 1994). Further, claims as to the significance
of responsibility for learning are also supported by anecdotal evidence that there exists a
plethora of school mission statements and marketing initiatives claiming their efforts and
achievements in fostering this quality in students. In addition there have also been recent
calls for education authorities to take active steps to promote student responsibility (e.g.,
Queensland Teachers’ Union. The Courier-Mail, 12 April, 2005).
In addition to the academic domain, personal responsibility, as a general concept,
has also been espoused as being a critical attribute that young people should learn from
home, school, and the workplace (Corno, 1992; Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Greenberg,
1987; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991) in order for them to interact effectively
in various interpersonal and community-based social situations (Anderson & Prawat,
1983; Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Hamilton, 1978). It is therefore
argued that because the classroom is essentially a social environment, responsibility for
learning should encompass issues relating to participation in academic learning tasks as
well as in a broader sense, specific expectations of appropriate social conduct (Anderson
& Prawat, 1983; Hamilton, 1978; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991).
Thus, this research recognises and reinforces the significance that has been
attributed to personal responsibility as a fundamental principal underlying a wide range
of individual endeavours and social interactions, including formal education and learning.
This study acknowledges that while there is some evidence in the literature that the
concept of personal responsibility has been applied to academic learning, further work is
needed in order to more completely define and describe the concept of responsibility for
learning.
3
Introduction To Relevant Terms
In focussing specifically on the topic of responsibility for learning, this study has
necessarily incorporated a number of key terms and concepts that contribute to its
understanding. It is therefore important that those key terms drawn from the literature that
have been regularly used throughout this thesis are defined, and their use clarified before
introducing the rationale and purposes of the research. This section introduces
responsibility as a general concept before discussing the various terms associated with
responsibility in the academic context.
Responsibility as a General Concept
Because the concept of personal responsibility is fundamental to all spheres of
human endeavour, it is necessary to have a general understanding of this term as it may
be interpreted in different ways depending on the context (Bandura, 1986; Hamilton,
1978). For example, responsibility in the broader sense, involves many legal-based
concepts such as obligation, accountability, liability, expectations and social norms, rules,
policies and sanctions, causality, negligence and compensation, and the stated
justifications for actions (Hamilton, 1978). In conjunction with these themes,
responsibility in relation to the domain of individuals occupying roles in various social
contexts (e.g., within the home and family) and being expected to perform specific tasks
(i.e., household jobs), also involves the concepts of ownership, blame, consequences and
4
personal self-regulation of behaviour (Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Warton & Goodnow,
1991).
According to some psychologists, personal responsibility has also been associated
with individuals being autonomous and in control of their thoughts, actions, and personal
destinies (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Greenberg, 1987). This general
theme of individual autonomy has been explained by terms such as exercising control
and personal agency (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991; Boekaerts, 1997),
self-directedness (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1992; Kerka, 1994;
Pintrich, 1995), self-determination (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Holt, 1983; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997), autonomous decision-making (e.g., Alderman, 1999; Pintrich, 1995;
Schunk, 2001), personal self-regulation (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Corno, 1992; Warton,
1997) and independence (e.g., Greenberg, 1987; Boekaerts, 1997; Wang & Peverly,
1986). Generally speaking, self-regulation is considered as being synonymous with self-
management (e.g., Dearn, 1998; Purdie, Hattie & Douglas, 1996), self-control and self-
direction (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Gray & Chanoff,
1986; Pintrich, 1995), and the self-initiation and maintenance of actions or behaviours in
the absence of any form of external prompting, monitoring, constraints, penalties or
reinforcements (Bacon, 1993; Bandura, 1986; Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Purdie et al.,
1996; Warton, 1997). Behaviours are self-regulated when they are internally (or
intrinsically) motivated, reasoned and justified (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon,
1991, Hamilton, 1978; Kuhl, 1992).
While the terms responsibility and self-regulation have been variously applied to
both individuals and collective groups, this research also routinely employs the following
5
expressions: responsibility, individual responsibility, and personal responsibility
interchangeably, when referring specifically to the responsibility of individuals.
Responsibility In The Academic Context
Throughout the literature pertaining to responsibility for learning a number of
synonymous terms or phrases have been used interchangeably, including: having
(personal) responsibility for learning (Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987); being
(personally) responsible for learning (Bacon, 1991; Cafarella, 1983; Whelan & Teddlie,
1989); taking or assuming personal responsibility for learning (e.g., Corno, 1992; Keith,
Puzerewski, & Raczynski, 1999; McCombs, 1986; Zimmerman, 1990); (being)
responsible students (Bacon, 1993; Corno, 1992); responsible learning or learning
responsibly (West, 1994); or simply, (being) a responsible learner (e.g., Bacon, 1990,
1993; Corno, 1992). Thus, when exploring issues relating to personal responsibility
within the academic context, this study considers the term responsibility for learning as
being universally applicable to this domain.
Within the literature, these terms have been encapsulated within a number of
themes and constructs, including “self-managed learning” (e.g., Greenberg, 1987;
Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992; Wolters, 1998), “self-directed learning” (e.g., Biemiller
& Meichenbaum, 1992; Cafarella, 1983; Kerka, 1994), “self-controlled learning” (e.g.,
Anderson & Prawat, 1983; McCombs, 1986; Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons, 1990), “self-initiated learning” (e.g., Lindner & Harris, 1993; Purdie & Hattie,
1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) and even, “self-motivated learning” (e.g.,
6
Alderman, 1999; Ames, 1992; Corno, 2001; Stipeck, 1993) However, it is evident that
researchers have tended to employ the label of “self-regulated learning” (e.g., Boekaerts,
2002; Corno, 2001; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001) as that which best
represents the theories and processes of this type of approach to academic learning.
Although it is apparent that there is a degree of conceptual and practical overlap between
self-regulated learning and responsibility for learning, this study is prompted by the
assertion that there is enough differentiation between these subjects to warrant further
research into the latter as a distinct concept.
It is also worth noting that responsibility, particularly in respect to the
performance of specific roles in various social settings, has been seen as being potentially
an imprecise and ambiguous term (Bacon, 1991; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Hamilton, 1978).
Despite the extensive assembly of descriptive terms and themes pertaining to
responsibility and responsibility for learning, this perception of ambiguity may be a result
of variations in the amount of control and accountability exercised by individuals and
groups. This issue is highlighted by Anderson and Prawat’s (1983) statement that the key
question to be explored is that of how much responsibility (i.e., control and
accountability) should students have in the classroom. Further, with respect to the
schooling and academic learning, the literature includes a number of indirect references
to the concept of a “shared responsibility” (Bacon, 1991; Corno, 1992; Gray & Chanoff,
1986; Lutz, 1997b; Warren, 1997), while in contrast, advocates of democratic schooling
such as Daniel Greenberg (1987) and those education writers referred to by Gray and
Chanoff (1986), eliminate much of this imprecision by their use of prefixes such as
7
genuine, full, real, or truly when referring to individuals who have total or complete
control of all aspects of their own learning.
Rationale
This research is considered to be important for a variety of reasons. This section
introduces these arguments under the two broad headings of Need For The Research and
Significance of the Study To Education.
Need For The Research
In addition to responding to the issues introduced above, this research has been
prompted by a number of important developments in contemporary education that are
underpinned by various theories that have appeared in the literature.
In the first instance, contemporary researchers have highlighted the importance of
having educators endeavouring to develop in their students a range of personal qualities
and attributes that will enable them to become most effective as learners in an
environment characterised by rapid social and technological change. These attributes
have been shown to include: (a) having internalised positive beliefs, self-set personal
goals and reasons for engagement in learning (i.e., being intrinsically or self-motivated)
(e.g., Bandura, 1993; Boekaerts, 1997, 2002; Corno, 1992; Karoly, 1993; Pintrich, 1995);
(b) active and purposeful engagement in learning, by personally taking the initiative to
exert strategic control over aspects of the learning process, including the utilisation of a
8
battery of diverse strategies and resources to achieve goals (e.g., Purdie & Hattie, 1996;
Wang & Peverly, 1986; Winne, 1995a; Zimmerman, 1990); (c) demonstrating persistence,
adaptability and confidence when confronted with obstacles to learning along with the
seeking of greater academic challenges (e.g., Corno, 1992; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Winne,
1995a; Zimmerman, 1998); (d) being able to self-monitor and self-evaluate the
effectiveness of their learning strategies and/or progress (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Pintrich,
1995; Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990); (e) becoming lifelong
learners who can learn independently and where necessary, self-instruct (e.g., Boekaerts,
1997; Holt, 1978; Schunk, 1995; Wang & Peverly, 1986; Warren, 1997); and most
significantly, (f) accepting personal responsibility for their own learning and performance
(e.g., Corno, 1992; Kerka, 1994; Pintrich, 1995; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Zimmerman,
1990, 1998).
Given the significance of the themes outlined above, it is not unexpected that
there is a general consensus among education theorists that the overarching goal of the
education system should be to encourage individuals to develop these personal attributes
and hence their capacities for initiating, directing and managing their own learning, both
during and after, formal schooling (e.g., Bandura, 1993; Boekaerts, 1997; Grolnick &
Ryan, 1989; Holt, 1983; Kerka, 1994; Paris & Newman, 1990; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk,
1995; Winne, 1995a; Zimmerman, 1990). Furthermore, within the literature relating to
individual autonomy and personal control of learning there is growing support for the
need for formal education to contribute to the development of effective, independent,
self-directed, lifelong learners (e.g., Corno, 1992; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Pintrich, 1995;
Wang & Peverly, 1986; Zimmerman, 1990) who take personal responsibility for their
9
own learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Kerka, 1994; Paris &
Newman, 1990; Talbot, 1997).
The overarching theme that links these concepts is that of individual autonomy
and personal control of learning. The importance of these issues is reflected in the
extensive published research that demonstrates the wide range of academic (i.e.,
achievement and performance outcomes) and personal benefits (including becoming
lifelong learners and having a sense of self-determination, empowerment and
independence) that may be achieved by individuals who are autonomous and have control
of their own learning (e.g., Bacon, 1990; Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Gray & Chanoff,
1986; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman, 1986)
Further, there is considerable evidence within the literature that contemporary
research concerning the broad theme of individual autonomy and personal control of
learning is closely associated with a number of interrelated concepts and theories,
including: personal self-regulation and control of behaviour (e.g., Bandura, 1986;
Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Karoly, 1993; Kuhl, 1992; Ryan, Connell, & Grolnick, 1992);
self-regulated learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997, 2002; Corno, 1992; Paris & Newman,
1990; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994; 2001); self-directed
learning (e.g., Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1992; Caffarella, 1983; Greenberg, 1987;
Kerka, 1994); intrinsic- or self-motivation and volition (e.g., Alderman, 1999; Ames,
1992; Corno, 2001; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Stipeck, 1993); personal goal-setting and/or the
setting of individual challenge levels (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Pintrich, 1995;
Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990); “instrumental” (i.e., independent) academic help-
seeking, incorporating the asking of questions in response to personal learning problems
10
(e.g., Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; King, 1994; Nelson-Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Newman,
1990; Paris & Newman, 1990); and learning independence (e.g., Dearn, 1998; Greenberg,
1987; Holt, 1983; Wang & Peverly, 1986); as well as personal responsibility for learning
(e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991; Corno, 1992; Moon, Kim, & McLean,
1993).
In addition, the literature relating to individual autonomy and personal control of
learning also recognises the terms “self-managed learning” (e.g., Boekaerts, 2002;
Wolters, 1998), “self-controlled learning” (e.g., Boekaerts, 2002; Kerka, 1994; Kuhl,
1992: Purdie & Hattie, 1996), “self-motivated learning” (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Boekaerts,
1997; Corno, 1986; Pintrich, 1995), and “self-initiated learning” (e.g., Purdie et al., 1996;
Warren, 1997; Zimmerman, 1990), with occasional references to “democratic education”
(Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987, 1994; Harber, 1995; Neill, 1960) and “natural
learning” (Holt, 1978; 1984; Meighan, 2001; Sparks, 2005) or “informal learning”
(Burley, 1990).
However, it is evident that although the literature presents a wide range of
concepts relating to individual autonomy and personal control of learning, responsibility
for learning has received noticeably less attention when compared with self-regulated
learning and self-directed learning. The need for research dealing with the former is
further justified by the assertion that while the literature has regularly associated the
various concepts introduced above with responsibility for learning, the specific nature of
this association has not been investigated or formally established.
It has also been noted that despite this prevalence in the educational literature of
the various concepts associated with responsibility for learning and the significance of
11
this concept to lifelong learning, learning effectiveness, and the goals of education, there
are widespread concerns being expressed by researchers and educators that students in
contemporary classrooms are either deficient in this characteristic (Anderson & Prawat,
1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993; Corno, 1992; Loughran & Derry, 1997) or are behaving
irresponsibly (Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994; Younger & Warrington, 1999). Further,
given the importance of responsibility for learning stated above, this tendency towards
student irresponsibility is more disturbing when the various initiatives by schools and
education authorities to foster individual responsibility for learning and classroom
behaviour (Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994; Queensland Teachers’ Union. The Courier-
Mail, 12 April, 2005) are considered.
Researchers have also identified a range of limiting factors that have a restrictive
influence on the development and promotion of personal responsibility for learning in
schools. These limiting factors can be categorised as either imbedded in education
institutions (Bacon, 1991; Dearn, 1998; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Loughran & Derry, 1997),
being inadvertently brought about by the teacher (Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992;
Utley, 1997), originating from within the student themselves (Anderson & Prawat, 1983,
Bandura, 1986; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999; Kerka, 1994; Younger & Warrington,
1999) or belonging to a wide range of underlying social issues (Keith et al., 1999). These
limitations will be discussed in further detail in the Review of Literature (Chapter 2)
In addition to these limiting factors, researchers have acknowledged that the
enhancement of personal responsibility for learning is significantly hampered by the
conceptual ambiguities and lack of precision and consensus in defining and describing
this concept that exists within the literature (Bacon, 1991, 1993; Gray & Chanoff, 1986;
12
Greenberg, 1987; Warton, 1997). The existence of this problem, despite the known
association between responsibility for learning and the various theories relating to
individual autonomy and personal control of learning introduced above, strongly suggests
that there is a need for further research to be conducted to address this lack of
clarification of meaning.
While it is evident that further research is required to achieve a more widely
accepted understanding of responsibility for learning, it is also important to keep in mind
that in order for educators to develop initiatives that are effective in enhancing personal
responsibility in students, they must take into account firstly, how this important
stakeholder group defines the concept (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993;
Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Warton, 1997) and secondly, the extent to which students
perceive themselves as being responsible learners (Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; Moon
et al., 1993).
Significance of the Study to Education
In conjunction with the issues discussed above, this research is important to the
general education community, particularly in terms of the potential contributions that it
might have for educational theory, which should ideally result in a number of practical
outcomes for pedagogy and classroom practice. The significance of this research is also
reinforced in the potential implications that this study has for a wide range of
stakeholders involved in education and formal schooling. Each of these areas will now be
considered in turn.
13
Contributions to Educational Theory
This study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the various
educational theories that are considered to be associated with personal responsibility for
learning, including individual autonomy and personal control of learning, the relative
importance of internal and external components of learning, and the importance of
focussing attention on the individual learner. It is further asserted that the investigation of
these theories would lead to the further clarification of the first mentioned concept.
By addressing the apparent shortfall in literature pertaining specifically to the
concept of responsibility for learning, it is envisaged that this study will add significantly
to the existing knowledge relating to how this concept is defined and described,
particularly with respect to the important stakeholder group – the students themselves.
Consequently, by having a better understanding of responsibility for learning, this study
may provide a base by which to further explore and formalise the relationship between
this concept and the various theories that focus on students’ individual autonomy and
personal control of learning (such as self-regulated learning and self-directed learning).
This increased understanding of what responsibility for learning entails should
also enable educational theorists to determine the relative importance of the internal (i.e.,
attitudes and beliefs) and the external (i.e., observable behaviours) components as well as
possibly establishing a link between these two aspects. It is also possible that the analysis
of the data pertaining to students’ understandings of responsibility for learning may
14
demonstrate that students place a greater emphasis on certain descriptive attributes than
others.
It is also envisaged that by investigating students’ understandings of responsibility
for learning and by basing the assessment of students’ responsibility for learning
attributes on the self-reports of the students themselves, this study will reinforce the
important movement within the literature of considering many aspects of the learning
process from the perspectives of the learners themselves (e.g., Bandura, 1993; Paris &
Newman, 1990; Purdie et al., 1996; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Schunk, 1995; Talbot, 1997;
Winne, 1995b; Zimmerman, 1986, 1995). This important development in educational
thinking is also supported by those researchers who have emphasised that researchers and
educators must recognise the pivotal role that the learner plays as an active participant
and director of their learning (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Boekaerts, 2002; Kerka, 1994;
Pintrich, 1995; Purdie et al., 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Wang & Peverly, 1986;
Zimmerman, 1986; 1989a, 1990).
Thus, it is natural that any research pertaining to personal responsibility for
learning should support this learner-centred perspective. The current research questions
have been formulated with the aim of making the views of school students a principal
focus. Such perspectives are considered important both in terms of promoting
responsibility for learning and determining the extent to which students perceive
themselves as being responsible learners (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990; 1991,
1993; Corno, 1992; Loughran & Derry, 1997; Warton, 1997). It is also expected that by
developing a more complete understanding (and greater consensus) of what responsibility
for learning actually means, it is more likely that theories pertaining to this concept will
15
translate to positive pedagogical outcomes for educators and most importantly, for
learners in schools.
Practical Outcomes for Pedagogy and Classroom Practice
Based on these potential developments in theory relating to responsibility for
learning it is anticipated that a variety of practical outcomes for educators and ultimately,
for individual learners will ensue. It is asserted that by gaining an enhanced
understanding of the concept of responsibility for learning, researchers will be better
placed to support or refute the claims that students in contemporary classrooms are
lacking in responsibility (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993; Corno, 1992;
Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997; West, 1994; Younger & Warrington, 1999).
If specific groups of students are found to be in need of strategic interventions
designed to enhance their levels of responsibility for learning then the development and
application of these programs and the subsequent measurement of their effectiveness
must be based on a valid set of criteria. It is asserted that by having reviewed the existing
literature (refer Chapter 2) and by analysing the collected data pertaining to students’
understandings of responsibility for learning (refer Chapter 4), this research could
contribute to the establishment of an appropriate and workable set of criteria (refer
Chapter 3) by which such assessments could be made. This set of criteria would also
enable comparisons to be made between students’ levels of responsibility for learning in
varying learning contexts, with the aim of determining whether certain environments
actually influence the development of this quality in students.
16
In addition to the practical benefits to educators of having a better understanding
of the concept of responsibility for learning and thereby having a valid set of guiding
principles for its measurement and enhancement, this research could also provide
practitioners with a greater awareness of the range of factors that are thought to be
working against its development (refer Chapter 2). It is also possible that educators may
be able to make practical use of their knowledge of the potential influence of school year
level or gender in their efforts to foster the development of students’ responsibility for
learning.
Furthermore, this study encourages educators to consider students’ self-
assessments of their perceived levels of responsibility for learning so that students can
become more aware of themselves as learners, especially in relation to the criteria of
responsibility for learning that are being advocated. This potential outcome is significant
because it supports the assertion that it is more likely that greater levels of responsibility
for learning will be achieved in the classroom when the group targeted by any strategic
inventions (i.e., the students) have a similar understanding to that which is held by those
who are initiating such programs.
It goes without saying that the fundamental purpose of enabling educators to be
more aware of the range of attributes that constitute students being responsible for their
own learning, is ultimately to achieve improved outcomes for learners. As discussed
earlier, such positive outcomes would encompass the development of a range of personal
qualities that should contribute to students becoming effective and independent, lifelong
learners who can motivate themselves to achieve their self-set learning goals and
17
standards, while retaining control of the source and amount of instruction and guidance
received along the way.
The significance of this study to learning and pedagogy is also strengthened by
the contention made earlier, that having students accept a greater amount of responsibility
in the classroom is a worthwhile and desirable objective (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983;
Bacon, 1990; Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Zimmerman, 1990) and that the ultimate
aim of the education system and classroom teachers should be to actively support the
responsible approach to learning advocated above (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Grolnick &
Ryan, 1989; Kerka, 1994; Paris & Newman, 1990; Talbot, 1997). As Cafarella (1983)
contends, the quality of education and teaching directly relates to the degree to which
students take responsibility for their own learning.
Potential Implications for Education
In addition to the potential contributions to theory development, pedagogy and
classroom practice discussed above, the significance of this research is also supported by
a number of important implications that may arise from the findings. By publishing this
thesis it is envisaged that researchers and education theorists might consider investigating
further a number of significant and related issues, including: which individuals and/or
parties should be responsible for young people’s learning (Bacon, 1993; Greenberg,
1987; Warton, 1997); exploring whether this concept should be viewed in absolute terms
(i.e., the learner being “fully” responsible or having “total” responsibility for their
learning (Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1978) or should students’ stages of development and/or
18
maturity levels be paramount (e.g., Bacon, 1991, 1993; Warton, 1997), leading to the
consideration of the question of, can and should responsibility be shared between certain
individuals and/or parties (Bacon, 1993; Dearn, 1998; Warren, 1997); transforming the
traditional educational structures and learning environments that are known to inhibit
individual responsibility for learning (Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1984); reconsidering the
goals of schooling and how teacher effectiveness is measured, in conjunction with
reviewing how they are trained; and finally, investigating the worth of allowing students
the levels of individual autonomy and control of their own learning that are advocated by
the schools that operate under democratic principals (Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg,
1987, 1994; Harber, 1995; Neill, 1960).
Further, it is asserted that not only do these significant issues provide
opportunities for future research, they also have the potential to stimulate earnest and
much-needed debate among a wide range of stakeholder groups (including, education
theorists and policy-makers, teachers, parents, and students) who have varying interests
and therefore responsibilities, in the education of young people. Of particular interest is
the question of whether advocates of individuals having ownership and full
accountability of consequences of their choices and actions and therefore, genuine control
of learning (e.g., Bacon, 1991, 1993; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987, 1994;
Holt, 1978) will be able to demonstrate the worth of this uncompromising approach to
those who have advocated for a more moderated perspective on responsibility for
learning based on individual developmental and maturity. These questions and issues will
be explored further when discussing the findings and implications in Chapter 5.
19
This section has demonstrated the rationale for this study, both in terms of the
need for further research in the topic of individual responsibility for learning followed by
the significance that the findings and implications may have for future developments in
education and pedagogy. Consequently, these issues underpin the purposes of the study,
which are presented in the following section.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the following three major research
problems:
1. How the concept of responsibility for learning is understood by school students;
2. The degree to which this sample of students consider themselves as holding the
attributes of a responsible learner, according to a number of specific responsibility
for learning criteria; and
3. The nature and extent of the association between students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and
behaviours.
This study also investigated whether differences in the demographic variables of
year level and gender are associated with students’ understandings and/or the self-
assessments of their learning attributes (i.e., Research Questions 1 and 2).
20
Research Questions
The first set of research questions (i.e., RQs) pertains specifically to investigating
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning:
RQ 1 (a)
What do students understand the term responsibility for learning to mean?
RQ 1 (b)
How are students’ understandings of responsibility for learning differentiated according
to school year level?
RQ 1 (c)
How are students’ understandings of responsibility for learning differentiated according
to gender?
The second set of research questions pertains specifically to investigating
students’ self-reports of their responsibility for learning attributes:
RQ2 (a)
To what extent do students perceive themselves as holding the attitudes and behaviours
associated with responsibility for learning?
RQ2 (b)
How are students’ self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours differentiated according
to school year level?
21
RQ2 (c)
How are students’ self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours differentiated according
to gender?
The third research question relates to investigating the association between
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-reported learning
attitudes and behaviours.
RQ3
What is the association (both correlation and difference) between students’
understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and
behaviours?
Thesis Outline
The remainder of this thesis consists of four separate chapters which are
introduced below. Chapter 2 presents a comprehensive review of the literature that
discusses not only how the term responsibility for learning is currently understood
(incorporating theories in a variety of related areas), but also the existing knowledge of
the many issues related to this topic, thereby supporting the need for the research (as
detailed in the Rationale).
Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the research design and methods
which includes the sampling, data sources (i.e., data collection instruments) and data
analysis procedures.
22
Chapter 4 presents a summary of the most significant aspects of the research
findings (i.e., data) that have been collected from the analysis of the survey responses.
This chapter also makes appropriate references to the full tables of results which are
presented in the Appendices.
Chapter 5 comprises the discussion of these findings detailed in the previous
chapter with references being made to relevant existing literature followed by a
discussion of a number of implications that this research may have for education and
classroom pedagogy.
The final chapter (Chapter 6) summarises the research and describes a number of
limitations that are thought to be inherent in this study followed by an account of the
various related issues that future researchers might wish to address.
23
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter reviews the literature that either deals specifically with personal
responsibility for learning, or is strongly associated with the concept. This review begins
with a discussion of the principal themes and concepts that are associated with
responsibility for learning. Following this discussion, a descriptive portrayal of
responsible learners (i.e., various attitudinal and behavioural attributes) is provided, based
on the perspectives offered by three distinct groups, namely: professional
educators/teachers; education theorists/researchers; and in a lesser capacity, by students
themselves. These portrayals involve a range of both internalised (i.e., motivational) and
externally observable behavioural components (including a number of specific features
that are contributed by self-regulated learning researchers) and highlight the differences
in emphasis within these understandings that the above-mentioned stakeholder groups
have presented.
The final section of this chapter presents a number of additional issues that are
relevant to the enhancement of levels of personal responsibility for learning among
students. These issues include presenting a range of strategic interventions that various
writers have proposed to achieve this goal, along with a discussion of the many limiting
factors that, according to the literature, are working against the effectiveness of such
strategies. This section concludes by highlighting one key area in which the
understandings of responsibility for learning may vary, namely with respect to the
24
amount of individual autonomy and personal control of learning that is implied within
those statements in the literature that have emphasised this feature.
The following section defining and describing responsibility for learning is
divided into two main parts, including, firstly, a summary of the major themes that
researchers have associated with this concept, followed by secondly, a discussion of the
specific attributes that teachers, researchers and students have also applied to this concept.
Themes Associated With Responsibility For Learning
A review of the literature pertaining to responsibility for learning shows that
while a number of descriptive statements have been offered for this construct, it is most
easily understood by its association with a number of familiar and interrelated themes,
namely: (a) individual autonomy and personal control of learning (incorporating choice,
personal decision-making, and the self-regulation of behaviour); (b) active engagement in
learning (incorporating personal initiative); (c) the consideration and acceptance of
consequences (incorporating ownership and accountability); and (d) learning
independence. These themes are now discussed in turn.
Individual Autonomy and Personal Control Of Learning
Besides being an important contributor to psychological well-being (Bandura,
1986; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Karoly, 1993; Kuhl, 1992; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986),
individuals need to feel that they have real opportunities to exercise control and personal
25
agency over general aspects of their daily lives (i.e., their thoughts, feelings and actions)
and therefore, becoming self-determining of their personal destinies is a major
contributor to their learning and general development (Boekaerts, 1997; Deci & Ryan,
1987; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Holt, 1983; Paris & Newman, 1990; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997; Stoynoff, 1996; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978).
Within the academic context, the dual themes of individual students’ inner
autonomy and personal self-control of learning have also been shown to be firmly
embedded within a number of fields of educational theory, including responsibility for
learning (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Caffarella, 1983; Corno,
1992; Dearn, 1998; Moon et al., 1993; Warren, 1997), self-regulated learning (e.g.,
Boekaerts, 1997; Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk, 2001; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2001), self-directed learning (e.g., Biemiller &
Meichenbaum, 1992; Caffarella, 1983; Kerka, 1994), and learning independence (e.g.,
Dearn, 1998; Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1983; Wang & Peverly, 1986). In recognising that
students’ learning responses are dependent upon their perceptions of personal control,
researchers have also employed the construct of “perceived locus of control” as a
measurable indicator of the level of control that students feel they are able to exercise in
specific learning environments (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; King, 1994; Martin, Myers &
Mottet, 1999; Schunk, 1984; Stipeck & Weisz, 1981).
It is also worth noting that not only is this theme of individual autonomy and self-
determination clearly significant to these important fields of educational theory and
therefore a major contributor to developing effectiveness as a learner, a number of
researchers have asserted that certain individuals will exert their inherent need for
26
personal control over their own learning through various unproductive behaviours (e.g.,
not listening to, or following instructions of the teacher, the misuse of class learning time
by socialising with other students or by generally doing nothing) that demonstrate either a
lack of engagement or an apparent need for external direction and regulation in the
classroom (Boekaerts, 1997; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 1990).
Choice and Personal Decision-making
A number of researchers have also emphasised that a fundamental component of
individual autonomy and personal control of learning involves the student having real
choices and therefore, being genuinely involved in making decisions that effect the form
and content of their learning (Alderman, 1999; Bacon, 1990, 1991; Boekaerts, 1997;
Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Karoly, 1993; King, 1994; Moon et al., 1993; Pintrich, 1995;
Schunk, 2001; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). The significance of this theme is also
highlighted by the extent to which various theorists have supported the contention that all
behaviours are the result of individuals’ choices (Bandura, 1986; Boekaerts, 1997;
Greenberg, 1987; Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Kuhl, 1992; Stipeck, 1993; Zimmerman,
1990, 2001).
In specific terms, researchers have characterised responsible learners by their
individual decision-making and personal choices in relation to the following important
aspects of the learning process: (a) the setting of goals (Boekaerts, 2002; Corno, 1992;
Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987); (b) the content of learning and level of
challenge (i.e., knowledge and skills) (Caffarella, 1983; Corno, 1992; Greenberg, 1987;
Holt, 1983), based on self-determined needs (Bacon, 1990; Caffarella, 1983; Dearn,
27
1998) and/or interests (Bacon, 1990, 1991; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997);
(b) the standards of achievement (Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987; Perry, 1998;
Warren, 1997); (c) the degree of effort, attention and concentration (Bacon, 1990, 1993;
Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997); (d) the identification of
human (social) resources that may be approached for assistance (e.g., Caffarella, 1983;
Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1983).
This final component is particularly significant to academic help-seeking theorists
who have maintained that by having to determine the nature of their need, selecting an
appropriate target and help-seeking strategy, and by ultimately asking someone for help,
the learner must be responsible for the outcomes of that process (e.g., Karabenick, 1992;
King, 1994; Nelson-Le Gall, 1981, 1987; Nelson-Le Gall & Gumerman, 1984). As Corno
(1992) has noted, being a responsible learner also incorporates the individual having
control over the amount of instructional support they require at any particular time,
thereby influencing the degree of challenge that they choose to accept.
It is also worth noting, that according to Greenberg (1987), when students’
choices in the classroom are either limited (by the teacher or the curriculum) or forced
(by the imposition of external sanctions) then genuine responsibility for learning is
greatly diminished. Bacon (1991) has also emphasised that the decisions that students
make, in themselves, do not necessarily denote responsibility because of the potential that
exists for their choices to be influenced by some form of imposed censure, or a need for
approval by others, rather than an intrinsic desire to learn the material presented. This
distinction in motives will be explored later in this chapter.
Self-Regulation
28
Researchers have also associated choice and personal decision-making with the
theme of self-regulation, which is also considered to be an integral component of
responsibility for learning (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991, 1993; Warton, 1997;
Warton & Goodnow, 1991). Consequently, responsibility for learning has been
principally defined in terms of the self-regulation and self-control of behaviour (i.e., the
absence of external controls) (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991, 1993; Bandura,
1986; Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Purdie et al., 1996; Warton, 1997; Zimmerman,
1990) and an internalisation of specific standards of conduct (i.e., having an
understanding of why certain actions may or may not be appropriate) (Goondow &
Warton, 1992; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Hamilton, 1978; Ryan & Connell, 1989). Thus,
the theme of self-regulation of behaviour (based on internally held beliefs and attitudes)
therefore, supports the contention that responsibility for learning should be viewed not
only in terms of externally observable behaviours but also in relation to the invisible
attitudinal and motivational components that support such behaviours (Anderson &
Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1993; Warren, 1997; West, 1994).
Moreover, when an individual is free to initiate, direct, control and sustain their
cognitions and behaviours (due to internally-based motives) without being prompted,
reminded, coerced, or forced by any form of external influence (i.e., peers, parents,
teachers, or other adults), they can be considered as being self-regulating (e.g., Bacon,
1990, 1991; Bandura, 1986; Boekaerts, 1997; Pintrich, 1995; Warton, 1997; Warton &
Goodnow, 1991). As Warton (1997) has asserted, the development of a sense of
responsibility in children reflects a shift from other- to self-regulation. This association
between autonomous control and self-regulation is further illustrated by the statement by
29
Rogers (1983) that “the individual who sees himself and his situation clearly and takes
responsibility for that self and that situation, is a very different person from the one who
is simply in the grip of outside circumstances” (p. 199). Thus, it is clear that self-
regulation in all contexts equates to self-control (Bacon, 1991; Bandura, 1986; Grolnick
& Ryan, 1989; Kuhl, 1992; Pintrich, 1995; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991).
As noted earlier, self-regulated learning theorists have emphasised that when an
individual acts autonomously and exerts personal control over their own learning, they
must, by definition, take responsibility for the outcomes of such control (McCombs,
1986; Perry, 1998; Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990). Furthermore, when the remaining
themes of active engagement in learning, personally initiating strategic learning
behaviours, and learning independence are considered (as discussed in the following
section), the relationship between responsibility for learning and self-regulated learning is
further strengthened.
Active Engagement In Learning
In conjunction with autonomy and personal control of learning, researchers have
also noted the strong association between responsibility for learning and active
engagement in learning (e.g., Loughran & Derry, 1997; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998;
West, 1994). According to the literature, this theme incorporates a variety of concepts,
including: the persistent commitment of effort and concentration (e.g., Alderman, 1999;
Bacon, 1990; Corno, 1992; Meece, 1994; Paris & Byrnes, 1989); having internalised
reasons for behaviours (e.g., Bacon, 1991; Corno, 1992; Warton, 1997; West, 1994);
30
learning independence and the personal initiation and regulation of many aspects of the
learning process (e.g., Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Boekaerts, 1997; Pintrich, 1995;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998); and the processes involved in academic help-seeking (e.g.,
Karabenick & Knapp, 1988; 1991; Nelson-Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Newman & Goldin,
1990) and question-asking (e.g., Aitken & Neer, 1993; Dillon, 1988; Gillespie, 1990;
Graesser & Person, 1994; van der Meij, 1998; West & Pearson, 1994). In addition to the
behavioural indicators of active engagement, Corno and Mandinach (1983) have also
noted that cognitive processes such as alertness, selectivity, connecting, monitoring, and
planning are integral to the various coping strategies that students activate in solving
academic problems.
Conversely, a number of researchers have described those students who have not
accepted responsibility for their learning (i.e., irresponsible learners) in terms of various
behaviours that indicate a lack of engagement in the learning opportunities presented
(Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997; West, 1994). Such maladaptive behaviours
may include, for example: an apparent disinterest in what is being learnt as demonstrated
by an avoidance of concentrated or sustained effort (as indicated by incomplete
schoolwork, homework and/or assignments, disruptive or disobedient actions and
truancy) (Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997;Younger &
Warrington, 1999); as well as evidence that students admitted that they did not always
pay attention or listen properly in class (Bacon, 1993). Thus, irrespective of whether
students’ responses to their classroom learning experiences are either beneficial or
detrimental to their achievement, contemporary education researchers have begun to
accept that all learners are not passive recipients of learning and must therefore actively
31
exercise some form of personal control over their learning (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Schunk,
1986; Zimmerman, 1986; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986).
Personal initiative is an important component of responsibility for learning
because it amalgamates much of what has been discussed within the themes discussed
above. Researchers have described personal initiative in terms of those actions that are
instigated by the student because of their internally-held needs, interests or desires (as
opposed to behavioural responses that are brought about by some form of external
support, direction or prompting by the teacher, parent or anyone else), as providing the
primary emphasis for learning (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991; Corno, 1992;
Deci & Ryan, 1987; Warton, 1997; West, 1994).
As will be discussed later in this chapter, taking personal initiative for the
activation of various strategic learning behaviours is also considered to be a central
component to defining self-regulated learning and as such, is one of the key themes that
demonstrates the links between individual autonomy and personal control of learning,
and responsibility for learning. Such a view has been incorporated into various
descriptions of self-regulated learners, who by virtue of personally instigating a variety of
behavioural, environmental and personal control strategies, are considered to be
exhibiting a high degree of responsibility for their own learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997;
Pintrich, 1995; Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992; Warren, 1997; Zimmerman, 1990). As
will be shown in the latter section detailing the specific attributes of responsible learners
(as viewed by researchers’ understandings of responsibility for learning), virtually all
strategy-based models of self-regulated learning have incorporated the concept of
personal initiative in relation to the application of such strategies. This association is also
32
evident in the use of the terms “self-initiated” or “student-initiated” as either implied in,
or used as a prefix to many of the environmental and behavioural control strategies within
these models of self-regulated learning (e.g., Lindner & Harris, 1993; Purdie & Hattie,
1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986).
Similarly, numerous researchers in the academic help-seeking field have
emphasised the association between personal initiative and responsibility by
acknowledging that the self-initiated use of human resources as an instrumental problem-
solving strategy entails the help-seeker retaining responsibility for the outcomes of that
process (e.g., Grayson, Miller, & Clarke, 1998; Karabenick & Knapp, 1988; 1991;
Nelson-Le Gall, 1981; Nelson-Le Gall & Gumerman, 1984; Newman, 1990). These
researchers have also asserted that by the individual independently taking the initiative to
identify the obstacles to their goal achievement, having to deal with any psychological or
physical barriers to the selection and approach to potential helpers, and by controlling the
amount of help accepted, they are by necessity, responsible for the outcomes of this
strategy.
The Consideration and Acceptance of Consequences
As the above discussion implies, having an understanding of, and accepting, the
consequences resulting from one’s decisions and actions is seen as fundamental to the
general concept of responsibility, irrespective of the context (Bacon, 1991, 1993;
Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Lutz, 1997b; Warton, 1997). The
consideration of consequences has also been conceptualised as being associated with the
33
concepts of ownership and accountability (e.g., Bacon, 1991; Greenberg, 1987; Warton,
1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991). As a natural follow on from choices, consequences
should apply to academic learning as they do in all spheres of human endeavour.
According to Corno (1992), when students take responsibility for their own learning, they
are actively promoting and managing the consequences affecting their own learning and
academic performances.
As will be reported later in this chapter, the literature featuring various
responsible learning behaviours has exclusively focussed on those actions that are
considered to make positive contributions to students’ learning (Caffarella, 1983; Keith et
al., 1999; Warren, 1997; West, 1994). However, it is evident that not all classroom
behaviours will result in learning or performance outcomes that are favourable or
desirable. According to Greenberg (1987), such less than desirable results, including
various mistakes and setbacks (some of which may not be easily foreseen) are a normal
part of learning and life, and therefore should be upheld by educators without the
negative connotations usually associated with failure. Lutz (1997b) has also asserted that
in order for students to learn about responsibility they must not be protected from any
negative and undesirable outcomes of their learning behaviours, and that students “need
to learn that it is they and not the school who is responsible for their success and failure”
(p. 1). Help-seeking researchers have also recognised that when an individual chooses not
to approach another for assistance (because of the various barriers known to limit
academic help-seeking), they must personally weigh up the costs (or consequences) of
not seeking help against the advantages of having instigated such help (Bogart, 1998;
34
Daly, Kreiser & Roghaar, 1994; Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Nelson-Le Gall, 1987;
Newman & Goldin, 1990; van der Meij, 1988).
In attempting to associate autonomous control of learning with accepting the
consequences resulting from students’ behaviours, researchers have frequently referred to
responsible learners as being those who have personal ownership of their involvement in
the learning process (Bacon, 1990, 1991; Greenberg, 1987; Keith et al., 1999; Warton,
1997). Specifically, West (1994) has defined responsibility for learning by stating that,
“Students (will develop the ability to) recognize, understand, and accept ownership for
their learning by self-assessing, demonstrating, and evaluating behaviours that support
the learning situation” (p. 32). According to Keith et al. (1999), the label of
irresponsibility with respect to learning is applicable when a student avoids being made
accountable for aspects of their learning environment, including the management of their
resources and/or their performance outcomes. Thus, when a student attributes their
failures to external sources (by generating excuses or by blaming others), they are
considered to be inappropriately abdicating responsibility for their own learning (Paris &
Newman, 1990).
According to Whelan and Teddlie (1989), the degree to which an individual
accepts accountability and therefore responsibility for their own learning is dependent
upon how they view the contribution that their learning behaviours have made to such
outcomes. These theorists also reinforce the importance of considering students’
perceptions of the relationship between actions and consequences by discussing the
concept of attribution of responsibility, which involves perceptions of the relative
contributions of causal factors such as ability and effort (internal factors) or task
35
difficulty and luck (factors external to the individual) in performance outcomes. Given
the important connection between actions and consequences, opportunities for future
research linking attribution theory and responsibility for learning certainly exist.
Learning Independence
As noted earlier, many of the themes associated with responsibility for learning
have also been shown to be applicable to the development of independence as a learner.
According to the literature, learning independence has been shown to involve the
following themes: the empowerment of individual students (encompassing autonomy,
personal control and self-regulation (Bacon, 1990; Boekaerts, 1997; Kerka, 1994; Wang
& Peverly, 1994; Winne, 1995a); the display of initiative and active engagement in
learning (Bacon, 1993; McCombs, 1986; Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992; Wang &
Peverly, 1994; Zimmerman, 1989a); self-reliance and the ability to solve personal
academic problems (Butler & Newman, 1995; Corno, 1992; Corno & Mandinach, 1983;
Karabenick, 1992; Nelson-Le Gall & Jones, 1990); and most importantly, the ability to
educate themselves (i.e., self-instruction) or to learn on their own (Boekaerts, 1997;
Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1983; Schunk, 1995; Wang & Peverly, 1986; Warren, 1997;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986).
However, learning independence should not be taken to mean that an individual
student is completely endowed with all of the capacities to learn without any form of
external support. Self-regulated learning researchers have recognised that the self-
initiated seeking of assistance from social sources such as peers, teachers, or other adults
36
in order to solve problems, is an important process by which such learners exert strategic
control over their learning environments, thereby exhibiting their independence and
individual autonomy (Lindner, Harris, & Gordon, 1996; Perry, 1998; Pintrich, 1995;
Purdie et al., 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988, 1990). Similarly,
academic help-seeking theorists have reinforced the association between asking for
assistance and independence by making the distinction between “instrumental” help-
seeking (i.e., requests for help that are limited to only the type, and amount that is needed
to allow the individual to solve a particular problem, or attain the goal in question, by
themselves), and that which is either unnecessary or motivated by a desire to have
someone else solve their problem (i.e., “executive” or dependent help-seeking) (Butler &
Newman, 1995; Grayson et al., 1998; Karabenick & Knapp, 1988, 1991; Nelson-Le Gall,
1981, 1987; Nelson-Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). It is important to
emphasise that, according to Bacon (1991) and Paris and Newman (1990), the
relationship between independence and responsibility depends not on whether the learner
solicits support or guidance from another person, but whether they retain ownership (i.e.,
by not blaming, or using their helpers, as an excuse) for any diminished performances.
The Attributes of Responsible Learners
In conjunction with the general themes discussed above, the literature also
presents a range of specific attributes that not only describes this type of learner, but also
provides a practical framework by which external observers may assess the level of
responsibility for learning that individual students display in the classroom. These
37
descriptive portrayals (i.e., attributes) have been derived from three principal sources
within the literature, namely: teachers, researchers, and in a much lesser capacity, from
students themselves. Each of these perspectives will now be discussed in turn.
Teachers’ Understandings
As teachers and school administrators are considered to have the potential to
strongly influence the development of responsibility in schools and in classrooms
(Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991; Corno, 1992; Loughran & Derry, 1997),
it is important to acknowledge how this group currently understand this concept. This
perspective has been highlighted in the reports by Keith et al. (1999) and West (1994).
In these reports the attributes of responsible learners were presented in the form of
checklists of observable (and therefore) measurable indicators that enabled teachers to
efficiently record their ratings of students’ responsibility levels, thereby guiding their
decisions about which areas of students’ conduct are deficient and in need of strategic
intervention. It was also felt that such checklists would provide a basis by which teachers
could demonstrate expectations in this area to students. Because these inventories were
designed with these aims in mind, it is understandable that they feature predominantly
behavioural characteristics, the likes of which are most suited to teacher observation and
appraisal.
The inventories from these reports incorporated a number of specific attributes
which can be arranged under the following broad headings: (a) Application to Learning,
including: producing quality work; asking questions and participating positively in class
38
discussions; being prepared for class, and having required learning materials, and
assignments; using time wisely, by keeping on tasks and taking the initiative to find an
appropriate activity to do when set work is completed; and generally, demonstrating a
positive attitude and an interest in learning; (b) Compliance with School or Classroom
Requirements, including: regular attendance and being punctual; paying attention to the
teacher; following the teacher’s directions; and completing set classwork and homework
tasks within certain timelines; (c) Individual Autonomy and Independence, including:
setting and recognising priorities; making personal decisions and communicating needs;
making, and following through, on commitments; making independent attempts at
problems before asking for assistance; being self-motivated; and displaying independent
work skills; (d) Interpersonal Relationships, including: demonstrating respect for the self
and others; cooperating with others (i.e., peers and teachers) and being a team player;
communicating own ideas in an appropriate manner; and showing an interest in
leadership; and (e) General Personal Characteristics, including: neatness and personal
organisation; understanding and accepting consequences; dependability; honesty and
loyalty.
In summarising these inventories, it should be noted that teachers have
conceptualised a responsible learner in terms of the attributes that apply to both academic
and social-interpersonal contexts within the classroom. They have also affirmed the
importance of individual autonomy and independence (although in a much restricted
sense), while maintaining the condition that responsible learners should comply with the
requirements that have been established by the teacher.
39
It is also important to point out that the inventories from these reports clearly
favour a behavioural portrayal of this construct (presumably enabling them to achieve
those practical purposes outlined above), while unfortunately still including a small
number of descriptors that due to their vagueness and lack of precision, cannot offer
either the teacher or the student any direction as to what is expected (e.g., “maintaining
intellectual discipline” and “taking responsibility for own learning” [West, 1994] and
“accepts responsibility for behavior” [Keith et al., 1999]).
Researchers’ Understandings
In contrast to the predominantly behaviourally focussed inventories presented
above, a number of researchers have emphasised that any understanding and depiction of
responsibility for learning is not complete without taking into account the wide range of
internally held reasons and motivations that potentially direct an individual students’
learning responses (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992; Meece,
1991, 1994; Warton, 1997). The importance of these internal components is highlighted
by Anderson and Prawat’s (1983) assertion that responsibility in the academic context is
a complex concept that has both visible components (i.e., behaviours and actions) and
invisible components (i.e., cognitions, affect and attitudes). This perspective is also
reinforced by Bacon’s (1991, 1993) assertion that being a responsible learner is a very
different concept to being one who is merely responding to outside influences.
Further, Bacon (1991) has strongly advocated for the distinction to be made
between the student who is “being held responsible” and one who is responsible, by
40
stating that in the first instance, “the teacher, or some other individual, compels the
student to engage in the learning process and actually learn”, contrasting with the
individual who “provides the primary emphasis for learning, … engaging in the learning
process to gain additional knowledge” (p. 1). He further advocates that when a student is
being held responsible for learning they are responding to various external influences or
demands emanating from other people, including: attracting the attention or praise of
teachers; attaining externally-driven (i.e., prompted and pressured) long-term outcomes
against one’s intrinsic desires (e.g., enrolling in tertiary study); or harbouring a desire to
avoid blame or any undesirable consequences not of one’s own making (such as lunch-
time detentions to complete set classwork). Thus, in restating that behaviours alone
cannot be taken as a reliable indication of responsibility for learning due to the likelihood
that an individual’s reasons for their engagement in learning activities might reveal a very
different picture, it is argued that the predominantly behavioural portrayals offered by
teachers should be appraised with some reservation.
Consequently, researchers have associated responsibility for learning with a range
of specific motivational and volitional components, including theories relating to: being
intrinsically motivated (including, exerting personal control of motivation and self-
motivation, and having internalised specific reasons for behaviours); having positive
attitudes and values about learning; and having beliefs about the causal attributions for
learning outcomes. Each of these categories of motivational theories is discussed in turn
in the following section.
41
Intrinsic Motivational Orientation
Within the general literature, there is widespread support for the critical role that
various internalised motivational and volitional processes play in activating and
maintaining behaviours (in and out of the classroom) as well as influencing learning and
academic achievement (Alderman, 1999; Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Bandura,
1986; Benware & Deci, 1984; Pittman & Boggiano, 1992; Wolters, 1998). According to
Stipeck (1993), an individual’s behavioural patterns, which encompass directing attention
and activity, persistence (i.e., the commitment of time, particularly when faced with a
difficult task), the depth of engagement, the continuation of motivation (i.e., returning to
a task of one’s own initiative), and the performance resulting from these behaviours,
represent the major indicators of motivation. The literature also describes motivation in
terms of the following behavioural outcomes that are relevant to responsibility for
learning, namely: the application of effort (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 1997; Stipeck,
1993; Wolters, 1998); task involvement or engagement (e.g., Corno & Mandinach, 1983;
Deci & Ryan, 1992); activity choice and preference for challenge (e.g., Ames & Archer,
1988; Harter, 1992); persistence (e.g., Alderman, 1999; Corno, 1994; Ryan et al., 1992);
and the effective use of learning strategies (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Wolters, 1998).
In comparison to the extensiveness of research detailing the motivational
components of self-regulated learning, evidence of available knowledge pertaining to this
aspect of responsibility for learning is somewhat limited. This paucity of research interest
in this area should not be taken as undermining in any way the importance of
understanding how those intrinsic attitudes, beliefs, and cognitions might influence or
explain the variations in students’ engagement in academic learning activities. However,
42
much of the literature associated with responsibility for learning has emphasised the
significance of various motivational orientations in developing the qualities of individual
autonomy, personal control, initiative, the self-regulation of concentration, behaviour,
and affect, and independence among students (Bacon, 1993; Corno, 1992; Kasambira,
1984; Keith et al., 1999; Zimmerman, 1990, 1998). Specifically, Corno (1992) has
associated these volitional processes with a learning or mastery goal orientation.
Thus, there is considerable consensus within the literature for the view that
responsibility for learning should be directly equated with intrinsic motivation (Anderson
& Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991; Bandura, 1986; Younger & Warrington, 1999). It has been
argued that when learners personally control their own motivational states (i.e., by
providing and managing their own sources of motivation, particularly when dealing with
low motivational states) and by enacting various volitional processes (i.e., goal-sustaining
behaviours or strategies), they are assuming responsibility for their motivation and should
therefore be considered as being self-motivated (Corno, 1992; Corno & Mandinach,
1983; Dearn, 1998; Gray & Chanoff, 1986). It therefore concluded that when an
individual is experiencing motivational problems, their cause can be related in some
degree, to a lack of responsibility for learning on the part of the student (Corno, 1992;
Kasambira, 1984; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997).
Researchers have also emphasised that human actions are dependent upon the
internalised reasons and/or justifications for those actions that they hold (e.g., Goodnow
& Warton, 1992; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Meece, 1991, 1994; Pintrich, 1995; Warton,
1997). According to Ryan and Connell (1989), these intrinsic reasons or “identifications”
(where behaviours are typically directed by one’s own internalised goals) should be
43
differentiated from either “external” reasons (where the purpose of the behaviour is to
avoid trouble) or “introjected” reasons (where the principles of others are followed in
order to gain approval). The importance of intrinsic reasons for behaviours is reflected in
the research literature that has associated responsibility for behaviour with individuals’
judgments of the appropriateness of actions (Goodnow & Warton, 1992); their
internalised standards of conduct (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991; Hamilton,
1978); the intentions behind their actions (Bacon, 1991; Kuhl, 1992; Paris & Newman,
1990); their ownership of behaviours and the resultant consequences (Anderson & Prawat,
1983; Warton & Goodnow, 1991); and the degree of their self-regulation (i.e., the
absence of external direction or controls) (Bacon, 1991, 1993; Deci & Ryan, 1987;
Warton, 1997).
Positive Attitudes and Values About Learning
Researchers have also highlighted the association between responsibility for
learning and a number of positive attitudes and values about learning, including: being
positively orientated (i.e., having positive feelings) towards school and learning (Bacon,
1991; Moon et al., 1993); having a real interest in, or hunger for, learning (Warren, 1997:
West, 1994); and perceiving the value of learning activities and schooling in general
(Bacon, 1993; Loughran & Derry, 1997). Bacon’s (1993) later work also argued that a
responsible learner would have the attitude of always wanting to do their best and not
being satisfied with the path of least resistance, while constantly seeking out learning
challenges. In conjunction with these general attitudes, Bacon (1991) further emphasised
that in order for a learner to be responsible, they must hold some or all of the following
44
values: a genuine desire to gain additional knowledge and expertise; valuing what is
being learnt; considering that engaging in learning is worthwhile in itself (or for its own
sake); and generally believing that school achievement is a means to personal long-term
success or career goals.
Beliefs About Causal Attributions For Learning Outcomes
As noted earlier, the link between actions and consequences is also associated
with responsibility for learning by the way in which students attribute their learning
outcomes to various factors. Causal attribution theory, according to Alderman (1999),
considers individuals’ beliefs about the contributions of ability perceptions, effort
expenditure, task difficulty, strategy effectiveness, and luck to their academic successes
or failures. By categorising these causes according to whether or not they are under the
control of the individual, this theory has the potential to enable researchers to better
understand how students perceive the ways in which their own learning behaviours have
contributed to their academic progress (or lack thereof).
Although researchers have asserted that when a student feels internal control over
the outcomes of their inputs (i.e., effort and/or learning behaviours) because they see a
direct association between actions and consequences, they are more likely to apply
further effort and engagement in future learning activities (Anderson & Prawat, 1983;
Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Whelan & Teddlie, 1998), it remains to be seen whether
future research will show an improvement in students’ engagement and achievement
levels by their having genuine or real responsibility for their learning behaviours. It is
also interesting to note that Bacon (1993) found that while students in his study did view
45
responsibility in terms of a direct association between actions and outcomes (i.e., they
expected some form of credit for their achievement related efforts), they were more
concerned with having their attempts acknowledged rather than achieving a set standard.
Given this focus on the important connection between actions and consequences,
opportunities for future research linking attribution theory and responsibility for learning
certainly exist.
It is evident from the literature that a great deal remains to be done in further
exploring the various motivational theories and volitional processes underlying not only
students’ learning behaviours, but also their understandings of personal responsibility
within various academic and non-academic contexts. The concern expressed by Younger
and Warrington (1999) that Year 11 boys, in contrast to girls, expected their teachers to
take greater responsibility for their enjoyment and motivation in the classroom suggests
that it would be worthwhile to investigate not only the range of factors students attribute
to their learning outcomes, but also the extent to which they see the various aspects of the
learning process as being their personal responsibility. Potential also exists for the future
investigation of the question of whether having genuine (i.e., full) ownership of, and
accountability for, all aspects of the learning process (as in the democratic school model
of education examined by Gray and Chanoff, 1986) will act as a primary source of
motivation for students in this type of environment.
46
The Contribution of Self-Regulated Learning Theories
As noted earlier, one of the most significant and prevalent areas of research
relating to individual autonomy and personal control of learning is that of self-regulated
learning. The relevance of self-regulated learning literature in understanding
responsibility for learning is justified from two important standpoints: firstly, the
conceptual overlap that exists between the major themes associated with the two
constructs; and secondly, by reviewing those specific characteristics that define self-
regulated learners and highlighting the processes by which such learners actively take
control of and manage their own learning.
Given that self-regulation has been shown to encompass the central theme of
individual autonomy and personal control of cognitions and behaviours, researchers in
the academic context have tended to employ the construct of self-regulated learning as
that which best represents the theories and processes by which such students internally
manage, direct and take charge of their own learning and academic performance (e.g.,
Boekaerts, 2002; Corno, 2001; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001). These
theories include for example, self-managed learning, self-directed learning, self-
controlled learning, and even, self-motivated learning (e.g., Biemiller & Meichenbaum,
1992; Corno, 2001; McCombs, 1986; Pintrich, 1995; Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992;
Stipeck, 1993; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
Consequently, self-regulated learning has become a pivotal construct in
contemporary theories of academic learning due to its acknowledged contribution to
learning effectiveness (Boekaerts, 1997; Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Paris & Newman,
47
1990; Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1990; Winne, 1995a) as well as academic achievement
in general (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Archer, 1998; Lindner et al., 1996; Purdie &
Hattie, 1996; Stoynoff, 1996; Zimmerman, 1986, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,
1986, 1988). A number of researchers have ventured as far as to assert that a self-directed
and self-managed approach to learning should be seen as a fundamental goal of education
(Boekaerts, 1997; Paris & Newman, 1990; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman,
1990). As Zimmerman (1990) has noted, because a self-regulated learning perspective
“has stimulated a shift in educational analysis from students’ learning ability and
environments as ‘fixed’ entities to their personally initiated processes and responses
designed to improve their ability and their environments for learning” (p. 4), it has
profound implications for the way teachers should interact with students and the manner
in which schools should be organised. Considering these statements, it is not surprising
that in more than two decades, self-regulated learning has attracted considerable research
attention giving rise to an extensive array of literature detailing the various themes and
characteristics applicable to this construct.
Themes Associated with Self-Regulated Learning
The literature has shown that self-regulated learning is associated with a broad
range of recurring and interrelated themes, including the following: (a) self-directedness
and the internal regulation of learning (i.e., not being reliant on external influences in
order to engage in the learning process) (Boekaerts, 1997; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989;
Lindner et al., 1996; Purdie et al., 1996; Wolters, 1998); (b) exerting self-initiated and
strategic control over the learning environment (incorporating selecting and creating
48
environments that optimise their learning) and their learning behaviours, (Kuhl, 1992;
Lindner et al., 1996; Pintrich, 1995; Wolters, 1998; Zimmerman, 1989a, 1990); (c)
having an orientation towards intrinsic- or self-motivation towards self-set goals (Lindner
et al., 1996; Pintrich, 1995; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Schunk, 1990; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1990, 1997; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996; Zimmerman, 1995, 1998;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), thereby displaying various volitional strategies (i.e.,
various goal-protecting behaviours), including: adaptability, persistence and willpower in
order to maintain focus and attention when facing motivationally deficient conditions or
other obstacles to goal achievement (Corno, 1994, 2001; Lindner et al., 1996; Paris &
Newman, 1990; Pintrich, 1990; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Sansone, Weir, Harpster, &
Morgan, 1992; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Winne, 1995a); (d) having a positive and
active approach to learning, including being mentally and physically active seekers of
knowledge and skills (Boekaerts, 1997; Paris & Newman, 1990; Purdie et al., 1996;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 1990); and finally, (e) being able to learn
independently, incorporating having the ability to self-instruct (Boekaerts, 1997; Paris &
Newman, 1990; Purdie et al., 1996; Schunk, 1991; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997;
Zimmerman, 1990, 1998).
An Overarching Definition of Self-Regulated Learning
Although a number of theorists have attempted to encapsulate these themes within
their own definitions of self-regulated learning, many of them have concurred with
Zimmerman’s (1986) statement that self-regulated learners are those who are
“metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviourally active participants in their own
49
learning” (p. 308). Zimmerman has also expanded upon this overarching, yet concise
definition by stating that:
Metacognitively, self-regulated learners are persons who plan, organise, self-
instruct, self-monitor, and self-evaluate at various stages of the learning process.
Motivationally, self-regulated learners perceive themselves as competent, self-
efficacious, and autonomous. Behaviourally, self-regulated learners, select,
structure, and create environments that optimise learning. According to this view,
effective learners become aware of functional relationships between their patterns
of thought and action (often termed strategies) and social and environmental
outcomes. The effective use of self-regulation strategies is theorised to enhance
perceptions of self-control (i.e., autonomy, competence, or efficacy), and those
positive self-perceptions are assumed to be the motivational basis for self-
regulation during learning. (p. 308)
This definition has also been shown to reflect the social cognitive perspective on
academic self-regulation. This theoretical framework is derived predominantly from
Bandura’s (1986) social learning theory of human functioning, which calls attention to a
reciprocal causation between the self-regulated learners’ capacity for controlling the
personal, environmental, and behavioural aspects of their learning. It is worth noting that
this theory has gained substantial support from many researchers in this field (e.g.,
Alderman, 1999; Corno, 1986; Perry, 1998; Purdie et al., 1996; Schunk, 1991, 2001;
Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1990) and has also provided an
50
appropriate theoretical background to the most prominent descriptive models of self-
regulated learning.
Zimmerman (1989a) has also provided specific examples to illustrate how key
personal processes (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs, affective states, goal-setting and
metacognition) are able to simultaneously influence, and be influenced by, environmental
factors (i.e., social support and structure of the learning context), as well as various
behavioural responses (i.e., task choice, commitment of effort and persistence and self-
reflective subprocesses). In reinforcing the triadic interaction between these three
categories of influences, Zimmerman (1989a) has further stated that:
When learners become self-directed, personal influences are mobilised to
strategically regulate behavior and the immediate learning environment. Self-
directed learners are assumed to understand the impact of the environment on
them during acquisition and to know how to improve the use of various
strategies….Students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies enables them to
increase their personal control over their own behaviour and immediate
environment (p. 336).
Strategy-Based Models of Self-Regulated Learning
Due to the emphasis within these statements given to individuals exerting
strategic control over various aspects of their learning, it is not surprising that when
researchers have formulated descriptive models of self-regulated learning that this theme
is featured. The significance of the strategic processes by which self-regulated learners
deliberately control and manage their own learning is not only highlighted by
51
Zimmerman’s (1989a) assertion that “students’ effectiveness in planning and controlling
their use of personal, behavioural, and environmental strategies to learn is one of the most
visible signs of their degree of self-regulation” (p. 333), but also in the prevalence of
strategy-based perspective within many of the models of self-regulated learning presented
within the literature (Boekaerts, 1997; Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Lindner et al., 1996;
Perry, 1998; Winne, 1995a; Wolters et al., 1996).
Although these contemporary models have all featured inventories of strategies
that are thought to contribute to such learners achieving their personal learning goals
and/or enhancing their academic achievement, there is some variation in emphasis among
them, depending on the theoretical perspective of the researcher. Despite these variations,
it is evident that considerable support exists for the particular strategy-based model of
self-regulated learning formulated by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) (Ablard &
Lipschultz, 1998; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Purdie et al., 1996; Risemberg & Zimmerman,
1992; Stoynoff, 1996; Zimmerman, 1990).
By drawing heavily on social-learning theory and previous research, Zimmerman
and Martinez-Pons (1986) have identified, and subsequently validated (in 1988), some 15
categories of strategies that American high school students used to improve their learning
and achievement while participating in class, or studying and completing their
assignments outside of the classroom. Consequently, these categories provided the basis
for the development of a structured interview for determining their use by students (i.e.,
The Self-Regulated Interview Schedule) and are summarised below: (a) Self-Evaluation
(student-initiated evaluations of the quality or progress of their work); (b) Organising and
Transforming (student-initiated overt or covert rearrangement of instructional materials
52
to improve learning); (c) Goal-setting and Planning (the setting of educational goals,
planning for sequencing, timing and completion of activities relative to those goals); (d)
Seeking Information (student-initiated efforts to secure further task information from non-
social sources); (e) Keeping Records and Monitoring (student-initiated efforts to record
events or results); (f) Environmental Structuring (student-initiated efforts to select or
arrange the physical setting to assist learning); (g) Self-Consequences (student
arrangement or imagination of rewards for success or failure); (h) Rehearsing and
Memorising (student-initiated efforts to memorise material by overt or covert practice);
(i), (j), (k) Seeking Social Assistance (from Peers, Teachers, other Adults) (student-
initiated efforts to solicit help from peers, teachers, or other adults); (l), (m), (n)
Reviewing Records (of Tests, Notes, or Textbooks) (student-initiated efforts to reread
tests, notes, or textbooks); (o) Other Strategies (i.e., learning behaviours initiated by
other persons or those unclear responses).
Not only has this inventory of strategies assisted self-regulated learning theorists
to define and describe more precisely what this approach to learning entails, it has also
enabled researchers to make comparisons between the degree of self-regulation among
sample groups in specific learning contexts and facilitated the exploration and
verification of the association between this construct and academic achievement and the
various themes noted above. It may transpire that the model proposed by Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988) could form the basis for future research that attempts to
establish more precisely the relationship between self-regulated learning and
responsibility for learning.
53
Self-Regulated Learning and Personal Responsibility For Learning
The association between self-regulated learning and personal responsibility for
learning is particularly evident when the overarching theme of strategic control of various
personal, behavioural and environmental conditions (in order to achieve personal learning
goals that have set by the individual) is considered. As may be observed in the popular
model of Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) discussed previously (and in a number
of other strategy-based models of self-regulated learning, such as those proposed by
Boekaerts (1997), Lindner et al. (1996), and Winne (1995a)), there is a clear emphasis on
terms that place the responsibility for instigating and maintaining these strategies
squarely on the shoulders of the individual learner (i.e., “student-initiated efforts to…” or
“self-initiated arrangements…”).
In conjunction with this strategy-based perspective, the literature suggests that
responsibility for learning and self-regulated learning are further linked by the following
concepts that are common to both: displaying an active approach towards learning (e.g.,
Bandura, 1986; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986);
having an internalised goal orientation (incorporating personally setting own learning
goals and adopting standards to be strived for) (e.g., Bandura, 1993; Boekaerts, 1997,
2002; Corno, 1992; Karoly, 1993; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989); being self-
motivated (incorporating the ability to maintain motivation when necessary) (e.g., Perry,
1998; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 1989b); holding a
positive orientation towards learning (incorporating various attitudes, beliefs and
emotions that support learning) (e.g., Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Meece, 1994; Pintrich,
1995; Wolters, 1998); maintaining control over the form, amount and source of assistance
54
derived from other people (e.g., Caffarella, 1983; Corno, 1992; Stoynoff, 1996;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986); and having a high degree of independence and
self-directedness as a learner, which also incorporates generally not being reliant on
external forms of regulation and decision-making in relation to the form and content of
their learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Caffarella, 1983; Perry, 1998; Pintrich, 1995).
Given the above, it can be concluded that while these constructs are not identical
in all aspects, there is a significant amount of conceptual overlap to support the claim by
various researchers that when an individual self-regulates they must, by definition, take
responsibility for their own learning (Corno, 1992; McCombs, 1986; Paris & Newman,
1990; Perry, 1998; Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990, 1994). Conversely, because
responsible learners have also been shown to be self-regulating (Anderson & Prawat,
1983; Bacon, 1991, 1993; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991), they can, for all
intents and purposes, be considered as being largely synonymous.
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
Although a vivid and detailed portrayal of the construct of responsibility for
learning (including those broad themes and specific attributes discussed earlier) is
presented in the literature, researchers have acknowledged the significance of the
students’ understanding of this concept (Bacon, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999;
Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991). This perspective (as opposed to that which is
derived from teachers and education theorists) is considered essential in firstly,
explaining a variety of learning related behaviours and attitudes and secondly, in enabling
55
educators to work towards having their students demonstrate greater levels of personal
responsibility in the classroom (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993;
Corno, 1992, 1994; Loughran & Derry, 1997; Warton, 1997). Researchers have also
acknowledged that in order to achieve these aims, educators must consider the
relationship between students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and how they
see themselves as learners (Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; Warton, 1997). Despite the
importance of these ideals, it is evident that researchers have given relatively little
attention to the specific question of determining how students themselves view this
concept.
With respect to the dual questions of determining how students understand what it
means to be a responsible learner and to what extent students consider themselves as
being responsible in the classroom, the most significant contribution to date has been
made by Charles Bacon (1993). By acting as participants/observers in a number of Year 6
and 7 classrooms over an extended time period, his research team were able to conclude
from students’ behaviours and from subsequent interviews, the nature of their
understanding of the concept of responsibility for learning as well as their self-reported
learning behaviours (and the reasons for them) and their attitudes towards school and
learning.
The findings of this research led Bacon (1993) to establish the following thematic
categories (in order of prevalence) as representing the essential elements of students’
understandings of responsibility for learning: (i) Do the Work, incorporating completing
set class learning tasks, especially assignments, within specified time frames; (ii) Obey
the Rules, incorporating the following of rules and the codes of behaviour established by
56
the school and governed by the teachers, including “not talking”, “not fighting” and
respecting the teacher by not talking back, and generally, avoiding doing anything that
might result in any undesirable and imposed consequences; (iii) Pay Attention,
incorporating listening to the teacher, or at least giving the impression of enacting this
responsibility by either remaining silent or directing their gaze at the teacher; (iv) Learn
or Study, incorporating the acquisition of knowledge; (v) Try or Make an Effort (meaning
that students believed that they should be given credit for making some effort or
attempting to complete set tasks); and finally, (vi) Responsibility as Something that is
Given or Taken, incorporating the dual themes of students “earning” responsibility by
making choices as to the quantity and quality of their work (i.e., responsibility being
taken] and/or the acquisition of responsibility as “bestowed” upon the student by a person
of power or authority [i.e., responsibility being given]).
Consequently, from observing students in their classroom environments and by
investigating by interview their attitudes and reasoning for learning behaviours, Bacon
was able to conclude from the prevalence of responses reinforcing teachers’ requirements
in the three most prominent categories, that students were motivated to comply with
various external-based behavioural codes (including a desire to avoid trouble with
teachers or school administrators). He also concluded that students were greatly
concerned with getting through those tasks and assignments that counted for assessment
(i.e., achieving a pass mark), rather than applying themselves fully to produce quality
work or achieving the best possible results. Bacon (1993) also noted an inconsistency
between students having stated that it was their responsibility to pay attention to the
teacher and their open admission that they did not always do so.
57
Finally, the most significant conclusion that Bacon (1993) was able to draw from
this study related specifically to the final thematic category that incorporated students
having a shared notion of responsibility. This theme was derived from responses from
those students who felt that they either had choices in their learning (i.e., responsibility
being “taken”) or were answerable to a teacher or some other authority figure (i.e.,
responsibility being “given”). Despite being the least frequently mentioned category, this
theme, along with those points mentioned above, reinforces Bacon’s earlier assertion
(refer Bacon, 1991) that responsibility for learning predominantly entailed students
“being held responsible” for their efforts and application. In concluding that students did
not perceive school as a place for learning and that they did not see it as having any
relevance to their future lives, Bacon (1993) expressed his concern that students mainly
saw their responsibility as having to satisfy the immediate demands of the teachers.
Thus, as Bacon (1993) has emphasised, an important question for researchers, is
to determine not only the degree to which students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning overlap those put forward by educators and researchers in the literature, but also
to explore how individual students’ understandings translate into their everyday learning
behaviours. It is asserted that such an investigation will lead not only to a more complete
representation of how students themselves view the concept of responsibility for learning,
but also to a better understanding of the factors that are manifest in students’ classroom
behaviours and attitudes to school-based academic learning.
58
Summary of Current Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
As discussed in the previous section, current understandings of the concept of
personal responsibility for learning comprise a range of themes and descriptive attributes
that have been drawn from the views of three principal stakeholder groups. The literature
has demonstrated that while researchers, educators, and students share a number of
similarities in conceptual and descriptive focus, there are important areas where these
perspectives differ.
It has been noted that because educators and students both view responsibility for
learning predominantly in terms of a range of behaviours that indicate a general
compliance with expected standards of conduct with respect to academic learning (as
well as social/interpersonal interactions), they contrast significantly with the majority of
researchers who have emphasised concepts and attributes relating to the broad theme of
individual autonomy and personal control of learning in conjunction with having various
internalised motivations, attitudes and beliefs that activate and foster learning. It was also
evident that while both teachers and students shared a focus on behavioural (rather than
attitudinal) attributes and a minimal acknowledgement of the concepts associated with
exerting personal control of learning (i.e., making choices and taking initiative), these
perspectives differed significantly by the absence of the two key themes of independence
and ownership of consequences from students’ understandings.
These observations highlight two important issues that are fundamental to this
research, namely questions relating to the extent to which teachers may influence the
development of students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and how might the
59
differences in perspectives between stakeholder groups (and individuals) be resolved.
With respect to the second issue, it is argued that further work is necessary to determine
more precisely how much choice, control, and ownership education theorists believe
students should have for their own learning within the institutional framework of
externally-directed, compulsory schooling that currently operates.
Additional Issues Associated With Responsibility For Learning
Having reviewed the available literature pertaining to the various themes and
attributes (i.e., attitudes and behaviours) that define responsibility for learning and/or
describe responsible learners, the remainder of this chapter discusses a number of
additional issues that are relevant to the goal of promoting this concept in individual
learners in the classroom. Thus, the following section summarises the various strategic
interventions that researchers have proposed to improve the current levels of personal
responsibility for learning and highlights the wide range of factors that are thought to be
working against achieving this goal. As will be shown, foremost of these limitations is
the lack of consensus among all commentators as to how much autonomy and control of
learning students should ideally have. As part of this discussion, one particular
perspective that strongly advocates for students to have full and genuine responsibility
and accountability for their own learning is described, followed by the presentation of the
evidence of the effectiveness of this approach to learning and education. This section
concludes by briefly alluding to a number of the more significant implications that may
arise from considering this view of personal responsibility for learning.
60
Strategic Interventions Promoting Personal Responsibility For Learning in Students
As noted in the previous chapter, there has been a strong agreement among
researchers as to the widespread concerns being felt over students’ apparent lack of
responsibility in the classroom (Bacon, 1990, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999;
Loughran & Derry, 1997; West, 1994; Younger & Warrington, 1999). These claims have
been quantified by Bacon’s (1993) study (as discussed earlier) and by anecdotal evidence
that was based predominantly on the observations by teachers of students’ external
behaviours.
This state of affairs is particularly disturbing given the significance that personal
responsibility for learning has for the development of effective and lifelong learners (e.g.,
Corno, 1992; Kerka, 1994; Pintrich, 1995; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Zimmerman, 1990,
1998) and for guiding the broad directions of education and schooling as a whole (e.g.,
Corno, 1992; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Pintrich, 1995; Wang & Peverly, 1986; Zimmerman,
1990) that were also highlighted in Chapter 1.
Consequently, these concerns have prompted a variety of strategic interventions
aimed at promoting self-direction and personal responsibility for learning by providing
opportunities for students to exercise greater individual freedom, control, and autonomy
in relation to the content and form of their education (i.e, personal curriculums),
individual challenge levels, the utilisation of time and resources and the creation and
maintenance of classroom rules (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993;
Dearn, 1998; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997). As Corno (1992) has
advocated, in order to develop the qualities of independence, self-regulation, self-
61
confidence and personal responsibility in students, learning environments must also
espouse the following features: widespread opportunities to pursue individual interests
without formal evaluation; the encouragement of revision enabling students to learn from
their mistakes and accept consequences; the employment of peers as learning partners;
and having students witness on a daily basis, similar problems being tackled by adult
models.
It can be inferred from the conclusion made earlier, that because students’
understandings of responsibility for learning generally mirror those of teachers, the latter
group also have the potential to play a significant role in the establishment and
maintenance of a culture of responsibility in the classroom. According to the literature,
this quality may be achieved by: demonstrating to students the primary reason for school-
based learning (Bacon, 1993); encouraging students to attribute outcomes to effort
(Anderson & Prawat, 1983); communicating (through language that emphasises personal
choices and natural consequences) and reinforcing behavioural expectations (Keith et al.,
1999; West, 1994); providing opportunities for self-evaluation (Keith et al., 1999; West,
1994); and most importantly, by not sheltering students from the negative consequences
of their learning behaviours (Greenberg, 1987; Lutz, 1997a).
It is also important to note that these recommendations have significant
implications for teachers, not only with respect to the ways in which this stakeholder
group develop their understandings of the concept of responsibility for learning
(including considering the understandings of students) and consequently, their
acknowledgement of its importance to learning and achievement, but also in how they see
their role in managing the learning environment. As Loughran and Derry (1997) have
62
contended, student responsibility for learning is best promoted by teachers having the
erudition and confidence to simply allow students more responsibility for this aspect of
their development.
Thus, it is asserted that research in responsibility for learning has an important
role to play in investigating issues relating to the development of a true sense of this
concept in students and in creating a greater awareness in education policy-makers and
practitioners of the potential benefits for students that may accrue from their having
greater control of, and responsibility for their own learning. Further work in this field can
also inform educators of the various factors that are thought to limit the promotion of
responsibility for learning in individual students and in contemporary classrooms.
Limitations to the Promotion of Responsibility For Learning
Despite the strength of the arguments for the promotion of personal responsibility
for learning in education, a number of writers have acknowledged that there are a wide
range of factors constantly operating within classrooms, schools, and in the wider society
that will limit the advancement of this ideal (Bacon, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al.,
1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997). It can be inferred from this statement, that unless
serious attention is given to addressing these limitations, any change in policy and
strategic intervention within the classroom will be limited in their effectiveness. Such
restrictive influences have been thought to exist due to factors inherent to the classroom
environment, including institutional factors as well as those constrained by teachers,
63
along with factors pertaining to the students themselves, as well as various general
societal influences. Each of these categories of limiting factors will be discussed in turn.
Institutional Factors
From an institutional perspective, limitations to students demonstrating greater
responsibility for their own learning may have been reinforced by factors instilled and
reinforced by tradition (i.e., a system of schooling enforced and provided by the state,
where external bodies are responsible for the design and delivery of the curriculum and
its associated standards). By this tradition, teachers have always been required to perform
a pivotal role in the classroom in order to produce the academic outcomes that students
and the community in general, expect (Bacon, 1991; Dearn, 1998; Gray & Chanoff,
1986; Loughran & Derry, 1997). It is possible that such bureaucratic administration of
education as well as a renewed focus on the importance of the teacher has diminished the
general perception of the importance of student autonomy, control and responsibility in
the learning process.
Teacher Influences
Teachers have also been identified as a major source of restrictive influence on
the amount of responsibility being shown by students. Both Utley (1997) and Bacon
(1990, 1991) have drawn attention to the view that teachers, for a variety of reasons, may
be either able or willing to relinquish to students the amount of control and authority
necessary for true responsibility for learning to be advanced. It has also been argued that
by limiting the contributions of the students to the types of decisions that directly affect
64
their learning experiences, teachers are not giving themselves the opportunity to
recognise the potential that students have for demonstrating their capacities for taking
responsibility for their own learning outcomes and achievements (Corno, 1992).
According to Bacon (1990, 1991, 1993), one of the first steps that should be taken
in the process of having teachers allow greater personal autonomy and responsibility in
the classroom is for them to consider what the students themselves see as being their
responsibilities, and what internalised reasons they may hold for their learning related
behaviours. It is clear that teachers will have to confront the important question of how
much responsibility should students be “given” through greater choice and accountability
(Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990). Any discussion of teachers’ roles and
responsibilities, as expected by the community and education policy-makers, has
significant implications for their potential to endorse greater responsibility among their
students.
Student Factors
While the promotion of personal responsibility for learning in the classroom
places considerable burden on the teacher to reassess the value of traditional role
expectations and to subsequently bring about a change in students’ responsibilities, it is
also acknowledged that students themselves must play a significant role in their apparent
lack of responsibility for learning. A number of researchers have noted that a willingness
of students to accept a high degree of responsibility for their own learning is not
something that should be universally assumed (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Corno, 1992;
Keith et al., 1999). As Kerka (1994) contended, even in the case of self-directed adult
65
learners, a high degree of responsibility for learning is not assured. Such variations in
willingness to accept personal responsibility for learning have been thought to be due to
individual differences, such as commitment and readiness (Corno, 1992), differing values
that come with greater maturity (Younger & Warrington, 1999), a resistance to the
greater effort required to be responsible (Utley, 1997), an aversion towards negative
consequences (Bandura, 1986), and possibly, gender (Younger & Warrington, 1999).
Researchers have also provided some evidence that developmental factors do
exert a great deal of influence on the ability or willingness of children to accept their
responsibilities in areas outside of school (Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Warton, 1997;
Warton & Goodnow, 1991). While the first two of these studies have emphasised the age-
related development of the understanding of issues such as ownership, accountability,
consequences, appropriateness of actions, and the self-regulation of behaviour (i.e.,
willingness and/or the need for reminders) with respect to family and household tasks,
only the study by Warton & Goodnow (1991) has recognised the developmental trend
from other-regulation (as in age seven) to self-regulation (as evident in age eleven years)
as it applies to academic learning (i.e., homework tasks). Further, self-regulated learning
researchers have also noted an age-related progression in the development of maturity
and self-regulated learning competence (Paris & Newman, 1990; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1997). According to these researchers, these developmental progressions involve a
gradual shift from external (i.e., other) regulation to internal (i.e., self) regulation in the
following specific areas: knowledge of academic tasks; adopting learning goals and a
positive orientation towards school; an awareness of self (including, self-efficacy and
beliefs about abilities) and social relationships and support; learning strategy choice and
66
understanding strategy effectiveness (Paris & Newman, 1990); sources of motivation and
reinforcement; and self-regulated learning competence (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997).
However, despite this awareness of individual factors, the need for further
research investigating specifically the age-related differences in students’ understandings
of responsibility and behaviours in relation to academic learning is evident. As Corno
(1992) has cautioned, a lack of a more complete understanding of the developmental
aspects of responsibility for learning, may lead to the possible worsening of existing
motivational problems as a result of assuming that self-regulation and personal
responsibility for learning should be encouraged at an early age. It has also been
concluded that while individual variations in students’ understandings of their personal
responsibilities may influence their willingness to accept responsibility for their learning,
appropriate environmental and instructional support is necessary for this ideal to be
advanced (Corno, 1992; Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Keith et al., 1999; Warton, 1997).
Societal Influences
In addition to the limitations discussed above, Keith et al. (1999) contended that
there are many underlying societal factors that contribute to the problem of students’ lack
of responsibility in both their academic learning and general behaviours. Such influences
include: a decline in the quality of parent-child relationships; a lessening of the support
for positive attitudes towards teachers, learning and school in general; a marked increase
in the power and influence of the media in promoting self-interest and instant
gratification among the young; a decline in motivation due to students’ perceived lack of
relevance and challenge within the curriculum; as well as a general deterioration in the
67
moral and social standards of society (Keith et al., 1999). According to Bacon (1991),
many of the behavioural indicators of students’ lack of motivation and engagement in
learning, including their apparent inability to recognise the relevance of education, and
their limited capacity to accept responsibility for their own learning and achievement are
all manifestations of a system traditionally based upon control.
Such causes, while appearing theoretically distinct from those limitations to
student responsibility discussed above, inevitably contribute in a practical sense, to the
constraint of personal responsibility for learning in the classroom. As Corno (1992) has
concluded, the problem of how to get students to be responsible for their own learning,
although universally desirable, is not a simple one to solve. Attempts to address such
difficulties are also dependent upon the limitations imposed by a number of causative
influences that may not be easily countered.
Additional Difficulties
The various problems associated with promoting personal responsibility for
learning in the modern classroom are only exacerbated by the ambiguities and conceptual
variations that are inherent within the differences in understandings that various
individuals and stakeholder groups hold. The existence of these variations became
evident when the views of educators were found to differ significantly from those of
education theorists and researchers.
The significance of this has also been highlighted in the writings of both Bacon
(1990, 1991) and Greenberg (1987). In the first case, Bacon (1990, 1991), argued that
68
unless students’ internalised reasons and motivations for their learning behaviours are
taken into account then any improvement in apparent responsibility may be little more
than superficial. In the second instance, (Greenberg, 1987) argued that educators submit
but a token (and misdirected) approach to developing genuine or real responsibility for
learning when they fail to consider this concept in terms of individual students having
anything less than full or total control over their own learning.
The last statement highlights the one area where differences in perceptions are not
only most likely to occur, but that the implications of these differences will be the most
significant for educators and students. It is therefore essential to consider the assertion
that when researchers have defined responsibility in terms of individual autonomy and
personal control of learning (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993;
Caffarella, 1983; Corno, 1992; Dearn, 1998; Moon et al., 1993; Warren, 1997), the extent
of the choice and/or opportunities for personal decision-making that students should have,
may not be clearly articulated. As noted by Anderson and Prawat (1983), one of the
major issues relating to responsibility for learning is precisely “how much responsibility
should be given to students through more choices and accountability” (p. 65). At this
point it is worth discussing one particular model of education that does not engender
either participants (i.e., students, staff and parents) or observers having any
misunderstandings as to what is involved in being a responsible learner.
Genuine Responsibility For Learning
The conviction that the individual student should have complete and
69
unconstrained freedom and control over all aspects of the learning process (and therefore
being truly responsible for their own lives and personal destinies) underpins the
educational philosophies and daily operations of the Sudbury Valley School (located in
Massachusetts, USA) which was originally established in 1969 and now supports a
network of some 29 such schools world-wide (refer www.sudval.org).
“Responsibility”, according to Daniel Greenberg (1987), a founder of this school,
“means that you have to carry the ball for yourself. You, and you alone, must make your
decisions, and you must live with them. No one should be thinking for you, and no one
should be protecting you from the consequences of your actions” (p. 4). This definition
therefore encapsulates the concepts of ownership, accountability and self-regulation and
reinforces the contention that learning should be based on the development of inner
resources that will enable the individual to pursue their learning needs and personal
interests, both during and after formal schooling (i.e., lifelong learning) with a focus on
profiting from mistakes, rather than avoiding them (Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg,
1987). When Greenberg (1987) argues that responsibility is not a matter to be measured
in degrees and that the individual should have total (or full) responsibility for their own
learning, he is inadvertently alluding to the possibility that the conceptual ambiguities
involved in understanding this concept are a result of variations in the amount of
responsibility allowed and expected, rather than in the terminology used.
In a school based on the principles of a participatory democracy, Sudbury Valley
students have the freedom to “generate or discover their own interests; decide what goals
to set for themselves, and decide how to pursue their goals” and as a corollary , ….“they
must also judge their own progress” (Gray & Chanoff, 1986, p. 187). Students’ individual
70
rights are further respected and protected by staff who provide instruction only when
asked and who model and reinforce the ideals of justice, fairness, and trust in their daily
interactions, which include participating equally with students in the running of the
school and the formulation and upholding of the schools’ rules through various
democratically run meetings (Greenberg, 1987).
Since the school’s inception, the founders of The Sudbury Valley School are well
aware of the doubts and criticisms that have come from many quarters of the education
establishment as well as from the general parent community regarding the effectiveness
of this type of “free” schooling (Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987). Concerns over
the perceived inability of young children to make appropriate decisions about the form
and content of their own learning (including how they use their time) are supported by
one section of the literature that argues that responsibility should be gradually bestowed
upon children according to individual stages of development and maturity (Goodnow &
Warton, 1992; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991).
Such concerns are best countered by the consideration of the evidence espousing
the personal qualities and academic knowledges and skills as well as the various career
pathways that graduates and long-term students of The Sudbury Valley School have
either demonstrated or reported themselves to have gained from their experiences at the
school. Greenberg’s (1987) claims that over varying periods of time, young people will
develop the personal qualities of maturity and independence, confidence and self-esteem,
self-motivation and goal-directedness, as well as resilience and persistence in solving
their personal learning problems, if trusted and given the space to allow them to make
their own meaning of the world, are supported by the reflective statements given by past-
71
students of The Sudbury Valley School (Greenberg & Sadofsky, 1992; Greenberg,
Sadofsky & Lempka, 2005) and by the earlier research of Gray and Chanoff (1986).
This last-mentioned published study gathered data from surveying and
interviewing past students in relation to their post-school vocation or tertiary study
careers. In the first domain these researchers found not only a wide range of careers being
actively pursued but that these people were highly employable due to their initiative,
adaptability and problem-solving skills, effective communication skills, especially in
dealing with people in positions of authority, and their commitment to work (and a
willingness to learn) in a field that is of great personal interest to them. With respect to
further studies in higher education institutions it was evident that some students have
gained a variety of high academic qualifications and had no problems adjusting to formal
college structures due to their innate active curiosity, positive attitude to learning, and
their ability to find things out for themselves. Additionally, these attributes were found to
be supplemented by a strong respect and understanding of themselves as individuals as
well as an acute sense of what it means to be a free and responsible citizen in a
democratic society.
It is also interesting to consider that over many years, Greenberg (1987) has
witnessed Sudbury Valley students learning to read (and drawing meaning from various
forms of the written word to a standard high enough to support their vocational or
academic study choice by the time they had reached graduation age), although he was
unable to pin-point the moment at which they had begun this process, nor describe
precisely how they had achieved this outcome. According to this writer, what is essential
for educators to understand about learning a set of skills as critical and complex as
72
reading and communication, is not how, or when this learning had been achieved, but
acknowledging that these processes had actually happened with minimal formal
instruction by teachers.
This discussion of The Sudbury Valley model of education based on democratic
values and students’ of all ages having genuine (i.e., full) responsibility for their own
learning has firstly, contributed significantly to the current understanding of this concept
and secondly, demonstrated that this approach to learning and individual development
can be effective. Further, this perspective and subsequent evidence has challenged
existing assumptions about how young people learn (in conjunction with choosing what
they should learn and who should manage and direct this learning) and the extent to
which students can, and should, be truly responsible for their learning related decisions
and actions.
Consequently, it is argued that this divergence in understandings of responsibility
for learning between various groups represents one of the most significant areas of
restrictive influence in the enhancement of this concept in students within contemporary
classrooms. This feature, along with the other limitations discussed above, implies that
while personal responsibility for learning is a highly desirable quality to be instilled in
young people (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993; Caffarella, 1983;
Corno, 1992; West, 1994), there are serious challenges facing those who have recognised
the importance of this concept and therefore desire to implement the sorts of strategies
described above and/or to bring about the necessary changes in educational philosophy
that would improve the current levels of personal responsibility as stated in the literature
(Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999;
73
Loughran & Derry, 1997; West, 1994; Younger & Warrington, 1999). As Pintrich (1995)
has concluded, “It is not always easy, but students should accept responsibility for their
own learning and realise that they have the potential to control their own learning” (p. 8).
These assertions and their implications are significant and likely to spark lively
debate among all stakeholder groups (including parents, educators, policy-makers and
possibly, students themselves). Such implications, as will be discussed in the Chapter 5,
include: reforming the existing understandings of responsibility for learning of teachers
and students to incorporate individual autonomy and personal control of learning rather
than behavioural compliance with externally set standards; positively influencing
educators to recognise and appreciate the personal and academic advantages of this
approach to learning; a review of the roles and responsibilities that individuals and
various stakeholders should play in the learning and development of young people; and
transforming traditional institutions and structures in education in response to the above
mentioned developments.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented a comprehensive review of the literature detailing what
is currently known about responsibility for learning. This review began by restating the
issues that were noted in the rationale (refer Chapter 1), namely that personal
responsibility for learning makes an important contribution to learning effectiveness (in
conjunction with guiding the ideal goals of education) and that there are significant
differences in how certain stakeholder groups understand and describe the concept of
74
responsibility for learning. This chapter then detailed the themes that, according to the
literature, are associated with responsibility for learning, followed by a portrayal of
responsible learners in terms of the attributes (i.e., attitudes and behaviours) that the
principal stakeholder groups (i.e., teachers, researchers and students) have used to
describe this type of learner (including the personally initiated strategic behaviours of
self-regulated learners). This review concluded with a discussion of a number of
additional issues that are relevant to the promotion of responsibility for learning in
students in modern classrooms. These issues included an account of the range of limiting
factors that are working against this development, the most significant of which is the
existence of a lack of consensus among the above mentioned groups as to how much
autonomy and control of learning that should be bestowed upon young people. This
particular issue was then highlighted by a précis of one particular model of education
based on democratic principles (i.e., genuine freedom and accountability in learning) that
has provided evidence of the worth of considering responsibility for learning in absolute
terms, irrespective of the child’s age.
Thus, this review of the existing literature has reinforced the need for further
research that directly relates to the concept of responsibility for learning. As presented in
the Rationale (Chapter 1), this study was prompted by the extensive literature that
reinforces the significance of individual students being autonomous and having personal
control of their own learning. However, despite the various attitudinal and behavioural
descriptors of responsible learners detailed in the literature, it has been concluded that
there is a deficiency in the depth of research that focuses on the specific attributes of
responsible learners, especially when compared to that of self-regulated learning. This
75
limitation of needing to further investigate the defining characteristics of responsibility
for learning was reflected in both the stated, yet unspecified association between these
two constructs as well as in the variations that exist in the understandings of various
stakeholder groups. This lack of consensus in understanding was particularly noted in the
ways in which teachers’ and students’ portrayals of responsible learners differed from
those of researchers and by the latter group failing to specify just how much control
should be given to certain individuals or groups of students (particularly in respect to
individual developmental issues).
The literature also features a general perception that students in contemporary
classrooms lack responsibility. This concern is supported by a discussion of the known
limiting factors as well as the range of strategic interventions designed to promote
personal responsibility for learning in students. However, it is also argued within the
literature that any significant progress in this area can only come about through
considering students’ understandings of the concept and by taking into account how
students perceive their own levels of responsibility for learning. Consequently, it is these
issues that have prompted this research into responsibility for learning and have guided
the formulation of the specific research questions that were presented in the previous
chapter.
As will be shown in the following chapter, the literature describing the principal
themes and features associated with responsibility for learning has made a significant
contribution to the development of the data collection instruments which were employed
in this research. Chapter 3 also describes the research design and methods of the study,
followed by an account of the processes involved in the collection of the data (including,
76
sampling procedures and the processes involved in developing and administering the
surveys) and the subsequent analyses.
77
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes a number of processes that were planned, developed and
carried out in conducting the current research. In general terms, these processes
encompassed the research design and methods which were selected in order to investigate
the research problems. The discussion of the research methods includes details of the
recruitment and involvement of the participants (i.e., sampling procedures), the measures
that were devised as effective means to collect the necessary data, and the procedures by
which these measures were administered to the participants and the data recorded.
The final section of the chapter deals specifically with the data analysis
procedures that were employed in the investigation of the research questions.
Research Design
Research in the area of responsibility for learning, while not extensive, has
previously incorporated a range of research methods to explore similar questions to those
investigated in this study. In addressing the research questions, this study used a mixed-
method approach that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative processes of data
collection and analysis. As will be discussed later in this chapter, this methodology which
applies both of these approaches to the investigation of the stated research questions has
the potential to produce higher levels of reliability and validity in the data collected. As
78
will be discussed in the measures section, a review of how previous researchers have
applied various research methods to similar questions led to the decision being made to
collect the data by administering a written survey to the research participants.
As these surveys comprised two questionnaires that were unique and specifically
designed for this study it was necessary to trial these components in order to achieve a
number of important purposes. The most significant of these purposes was to determine
the suitability of the questionnaires for the desired year level groups, particularly in
respect to the ability of all the participants (especially the youngest students) to
understand the language and comprehend the concepts presented. The results of these
trials guided the simplification of the wording of the questionnaire items and enabled the
researcher to determine and practice the type of support that would be needed by students.
The trials were also valuable in determining the amount of time that students would need
for the completion of the entire survey.
This series of trials involved a total of fifteen individuals between the ages of ten
and fourteen who were presented with the three separate components of the survey. The
pre-test sample groups were selected with the aim of concentrating on the younger age
groups who were perceived as comprising a cross-section of academic abilities. These
trials indicated that although a relatively small number of items required rewording in
simpler language, children of ten years of age (i.e., Year 5 students) were capable of
understanding and completing the survey effectively with minimum external support. It
was also concluded that younger students would be able to fulfill the requirements of the
survey within a reasonable time frame (i.e., 20 to 30 minutes, including time for the
researchers’ introductions and for students’ questions to be answered). Consequently,
79
these outcomes led to the further development of the multi-measure survey and the
appropriate means by which to administer them. Details of the data collection processes
will be presented in the measures and procedures sections that follow.
Methods
This section details the processes that were involved in conducting the main part
of the research. These processes include the recruitment and involvement of the
participants, the measures used for the collection of data (including the development of
the components of the multi-measure survey), the procedures involved in administering
the survey and finally, the data analysis procedures. Before presenting these sections it is
worthwhile to briefly review the methods used by previous researchers in collecting data
pertaining to research questions that are associated with those of the current study.
It was noted that researchers interested in how young children have internalised
various aspects of responsibility (i.e., their personal reasons, justifications and
perceptions of accountability for actions) with respect to household jobs (Goodnow &
Warton, 1992; Warton & Goodnow, 1991) and homework tasks (Warton, 1997) have
shown a preference for an interview-based approach to data collection. As these writers
have argued, such a design allows the researcher to probe and clarify the thoughts and
attitudes of smaller sample groups as they responded to a variety of appropriate
situational vignettes. This method was expanded further by Bacon (1993), who followed
up his interviews of some 52 American middle school students with extended periods of
actual observation of their classroom activities (i.e., acting as both participant and
80
observer) in order to establish how students’ stated attitudes manifested themselves in
their learning behaviours.
When researchers collected data by interview (which incorporated the
presentation of vignettes and issues applicable to the designated sample group), many of
the potential limitations associated with working with younger children were overcome
by the data collection process. However, in accessing an appropriately large sample
group through the medium of the written survey, this study allowed students the
flexibility to reveal both attitudinal and behavioural aspects of their understandings of the
concept of responsibility for learning by also posing this question in an open-ended
format.
As in the current study, written surveys involving checklists of descriptive
attributes have previously been employed in a range of research fields including,
determining students’ perceptions of autonomy, choice and control (Deci, Schwartz,
Sheinman & Ryan, 1981; Moon et al., 1993; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986), their self-reports
of strategic learning behaviours (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich,
1996), their use of self-regulated learning strategies (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Lindner
& Harris, 1993; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988) and the recording of teachers’
assessments of students’ responsibility levels (Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994). It is
evident that the process of collecting data by written survey has been proven to be a valid
and reliable means of determining and recording students’ perceptions of, and responses
to, learning situations from an internal perspective (i.e., students’ own self-reports) as
well as from external observations (i.e., by teachers or researchers).
81
With respect to the investigation of the question of determining some measure of
students’ levels of responsibility for learning, it should be noted that by basing this
exploration of students’ learning attitudes and behaviours solely on their self-reports
(rather than relying on some external form of appraisement), conclusions can only be
drawn from the way in which they described themselves. The potential certainly exists
for these self-perceptions to be different from the appraisals or judgements of others. It
was also assumed that by stressing to participants that their responses were to be treated
in strict confidence, that these self-reports would produce an honest and accurate
portrayal of students’ self-perceptions of their learning attributes.
Although future research might explore similar questions via other data collection
processes, it is argued that the current study’s design and methodologies were appropriate
for the stated research questions and the sample groups chosen. Such a claim is also
supported by Assor and Connell’s (1992) assertion that not only should written surveys
(incorporating various self-report measures) be seen as a reliable and valid means to
explore students’ perceptions of various aspects of their classroom experience, but also
that this approach is widespread within the educational research literature. A detailed
discussion of the limitations of these processes is provided in the final chapter (refer
Chapter 6).
It is therefore concluded that while other research methods (such as interview and
observational methods) would provide data of greater depth (i.e., qualitative) relating to
students’ understandings and/or their self-appraisals, a written survey was selected as the
most appropriate means of achieving the study’s aims.
82
Participants
This section discusses the processes of selecting, recruiting and accessing the
appropriate sample groupings that would provide meaningful responses to the chosen
data collection measures.
In exploring the potential effects of year level and gender differences on the two
variables of interest, it was important that this study accessed a reasonable sample size in
all of these sub-groups. While there were a number of factors outside of the researcher’s
control that might restrict the availability of potential participants (including school
priorities, teachers’ interest and time constraints, parental consent, and students’
willingness), it was important that sampling procedures enabled a sufficient sample size
to be accessed so that meaningful statistical analysis could be conducted. Table 3.1
presents the numbers of students that participated in the survey according to their
designated school year level (and average age) and gender grouping as well as
information on the number of intact class groups.
Table 3.1 Composition of Sample According to Year Level, Average Age, Gender and Class Groupings.
Year level
Average Age
Sample size
Gender M F
Intact class groups
Year 5 10 years 66 35 31 3 Year 7 12 years 69 35 34 3 Year 9 14 years 70 36 34 3
Year 11 16 / 17 years 81 26 55 5
Totals:
4 year levels
286
132 154
14
Overall, this sample provided a reasonable numerical balance across the four year
levels and between gender subgroups. While it was initially proposed that a larger sample
83
of the youngest year level would be desirable (to allow for the potential loss of data due
to comprehension or mechanical difficulties among these students), it eventuated that the
oldest year level yielded the largest sample numbers. This outcome was explained by the
interest that the secondary schools showed in the concept of responsibility for learning
and its potential implications for post-compulsory education.
The choice of year levels was influenced by the existing literature and
consequently it was desired that a wide range of school year levels should be involved in
the study. It was thought that this range should encompass both the Primary and
Secondary school sectors with one year level group being drawn from the post-
compulsory schooling sector. By having a reasonable sample size from four year level
divisions it is argued that greater opportunities exists for statistical analysis of year level
differences to be made.
Based on the age levels and sample sizes incorporated within the existing research
in the areas of self-regulated learning and academic help-seeking (e.g., Pintrich & De
Groot, 1990; Purdie et al., 1996; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997), it is asserted that these sample
group numbers are large enough to provide adequate sampling reliability, allowing for
normal variations within year level and gender sub-groupings. In respect to the issue of
whether the youngest year level (i.e., Year 5) would be able to adequately comprehend
and respond to questions relating to their understandings of responsibility and classroom
learning behaviours, previous studies such as those by Bacon (1993), Moon et al. (1993)
and Warton (1997) have shown that children of similar or even younger age groups are
able to produce meaningful data. The processes involved in the recruitment of, and access
84
to, these students for their participation in the data collection by written survey will be
discussed in the procedures section.
Measures
The decision to employ an approach to the collection of data based on the
application of written surveys has facilitated the investigation of the research questions
(i.e., students’ understandings of the concept of responsibility for learning and their self-
reported learning attitudes and behaviours as well as the association between these
dependent variables) with a sample group large enough for year level and gender
differences to be meaningfully analysed. As will be shown, the components of the
surveys have enabled a mixed-method approach that incorporates both qualitative and
quantitative processes of data collection and analysis.
As will be explained below, the data collection instrument was developed
especially for the purpose of investigating a number of research questions (i.e., the multi-
measure survey) and as such comprised three separate and distinct components, all of
which required students to independently provide written responses. Thus, the student
multi-measure surveys comprised the following components: (a) an open-ended question
relating to students’ understandings of what it means to be a responsible learner (known
as the Open-Ended Questionnaire; (b) a Likert-type response questionnaire pertaining to
students’ understandings of the concept of responsibility for learning (known as the
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire (the SURLQ)
and (c) a similar, yet separate, questionnaire requesting self-report data relating to
85
students’ attitudes to learning and their classroom and study behaviours (known as the
Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (the
SRLABQ).
While the formulation of the open-ended question was relatively straightforward,
the two Likert-type response questionnaires required a number of involved steps to
transform the extensive range of descriptors found in the existing literature into the final
format of the questionnaires. A detailed description of these components, including the
processes involved in the development of the questionnaires is presented below.
Developing the Survey Items for the SURLQ and the SRLABQ
As will be shown, both of these questionnaires were based on the same catalogue
of descriptive items (i.e., The Responsibility For Learning Inventory) that reflected the
key attributes (i.e., attitudes and behaviours) derived from the existing literature in areas
related to responsibility for learning (including self-regulated learning, intrinsic or self-
motivation and academic help-seeking). These attributes were drawn from how
researchers and teachers have defined and/or described responsible learners or the
concept of responsibility for learning. Consequently, this catalogue of descriptors was
adapted for use in the two questionnaires, the first of which asked students to indicate the
degree to which they agreed that each of the particular items applied to responsible
learners (the SURLQ). In contrast, the second questionnaire asked students to indicate the
extent to which they believed the items applied to them as individual learners (the
SRLABQ). The processes by which the complete catalogue of descriptive attributes was
established and their sources within the literature are discussed below.
86
The Responsibility For Learning Inventory
By reviewing the literature in the relevant areas noted above (also refer to Chapter
2), a comprehensive catalogue of some 60 descriptive characteristics was initially
produced. Once the imprecise and repetitive elements had been deleted and the remainder
arranged into the most appropriate thematic categories, this list of attributes, was given
the title of The Responsibility For Learning Inventory (referred to as The Inventory)
(refer Appendix A).
Beginning with the literature dealing specifically with responsibility for learning,
it was evident that the characteristics of responsible learners had been ascertained
predominantly from teachers and researchers. As presented in Chapter 2, it became clear
that these attributes could be considered under the broad themes of individual autonomy
and personal control of learning (incorporating personal choice and decision-making and
self-regulation), active engagement in learning (incorporating taking initiative),
considering and accepting consequences (incorporating ownership and accountability),
and learning independence. That is, a significant proportion of the initial catalogue was
derived directly from the existing literature in the field of responsibility for learning.
The literature review in Chapter 2 also discusses the important contribution that
theories of self-regulated learning and academic help-seeking have made to the
descriptive portrayal of responsibility for learning. Self-regulated learning researchers
have emphasised a number of specific self-initiated learning behaviours that were
considered to be relevant to this portrayal. Drawing from the strategy-based model
proposed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986), strategies such as: self-evaluation of
progress; organising and transforming instructional materials; goal-setting and planning;
87
seeking information (from non-social sources); and/or help from social sources (such as
peers, teachers, or adults) were included. These strategies were reworked into the
respective behavioural items of: “Judges and assesses own work or efforts”; “Organises
and takes care of notes and learning materials”; “Sets own learning goals and works
towards them”; “Finds the necessary information or resources to support learning”;
“Asking questions of peers when they are unsure of something”; and “Asking questions
of teachers when they are unsure of something”.
The specific self-regulated learning strategies of keeping records and monitoring,
environmental structuring, self-consequences, rehearsing and monitoring, and reviewing
records were not directly incorporated in the questionnaire but were built into a number
of specific items, such as: “Makes sure that any missed work is caught up”; “Contributes
to overall classroom tone (by promoting respect, consideration, support, trust, fairness
and/or humour)”; “Accepts any harmful results of learning behaviours”; “Checking
anything they are not sure of”; and “Arranges own revision or extension tasks”,
respectively. It is important to note that many of these strategy descriptions were
preceded by the expression “self-initiated” which emphasised the concepts of individual
ownership, control and responsibility for the outcomes of those actions (refer Appendix
A).
Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons’ (1988) subsequent study which involved the
development of a teacher rating scale for measuring students’ classroom self-regulation,
also provided a number of specific behaviours that were also incorporated in The
Inventory, namely: “Judges and assesses own work or efforts.”; “Reliably finishes
learning tasks (within specified deadlines)”; “Gets involved and participates in all
88
learning activities”; “Is prepared for class by having homework completed.”; “Controls
enthusiasm and interest in learning.”; and “Asking questions of teachers when they are
unsure of something”. While recognising the inevitable overlap with their original
inventory of strategies, these researchers maintained that the latter items represented
those behaviours and attitudes that lent themselves most efficiently to teacher observation
and measurement (refer Appendix A).
Many of the above-mentioned themes were also reflected in the “instrumental”
view of academic help-seeking which emphasised that when a learner independently
initiates the request for a specific amount and type of assistance (rather than simply
asking for answers) they are taking personal responsibility for overcoming their learning
problems (Butler & Neuman, 1995; Karabenick, 1992; Nelson-Le Gall, 1981, 1987;
Nelson-Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Thus, the help-seeking literature
prompted the inclusion of the specific items of “Asks only for the minimum amount of
help needed to solve a problem” and “Prefers hints or clues rather than answers, when
asking for help” in The Inventory (refer Appendix A).
It is evident from this brief discussion of the known attributes of responsible
learners that The Inventory initially favoured a behavioural portrayal with relatively little
emphasis being given to the internal aspects of the construct. However, in acknowledging
the significance of Anderson and Prawat’s (1983) assertion that responsibility combines
both visible components (i.e., behaviour) and invisible components (i.e., cognitions,
beliefs, and affect), a number of attitudinal and motivational items were incorporated into
The Inventory (refer Appendix A).
89
Researchers have reinforced the association between responsibility for learning
and a number of attitudes and values, including: being positively orientated (i.e., having
positive feelings) towards school and learning (Bacon, 1991; Moon et al., 1993); having a
real interest in, or hunger for, learning (Warren, 1997: West, 1994); and perceiving the
value of learning activities and schooling (Bacon, 1993; Loughran & Derry, 1997).
Bacon’s (1993) later work revealed that a responsible learner would also have the attitude
of always wanting to do their best and not being satisfied with the path of least resistance,
while constantly seeking out learning challenges. In conjunction with these general
attitudes, Bacon (1991) further emphasised that in order for a learner to be responsible,
they must hold some or all of the following values: a genuine desire to gain additional
knowledge and expertise; valuing what is being learnt; considering that engaging in
learning is worthwhile in itself (or for its own sake); and generally believing that school
achievement is a means to long-term personal career goals. Therefore it was appropriate
to include in The Inventory the following reworded attitudinal items: “Wanting to learn
as much as possible”; “Tries to do best work whenever possible”; “Believing that school
achievement is important for future success”; and “Prefers class work/tasks to be
challenging” (refer Appendix A)
As noted in Chapter 2, researchers have acknowledged the importance of certain
internal motivational components thought to underpin the behaviours of responsible
and/or self-regulated learners. For example, these types of learners are intrinsically
motivated (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991; Bandura, 1986; Pintrich, 1995;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997), have a learning and/or mastery goal orientation (e.g.,
Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Corno, 1992; Meece, 1994; Wolters, 1998) and are able to
90
exert personal control over their own motivational states (i.e., self-motivation) (Corno &
Mandinach, 1983; Dearn, 1998; Gray & Chanoff, 1986). Additionally, such learners have
internalised the view that there is a direct relationship between actions and consequences
(thereby attributing their academic learning outcomes to their own efforts and/or learning
behaviours) (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Whelan & Teddlie,
1989). Consequently, the motivational and volitional items of “Carry out learning tasks
by themselves without any teacher controls”; “Sets own learning goals and works
towards them”; and “Controls enthusiasm and interest in learning” were also incorporated
into The Inventory (refer Appendix A).
Organising the Descriptors into Thematic Categories
It was necessary to reduce the number of items in this list by removing those
statements where the underlying themes were overlapping or where the descriptor did not
contribute anything to The Inventory due its vague or imprecise language. The latter
concern is exemplified by the characteristics of “Maintaining intellectual discipline” and
“Takes responsibility for own learning” from the teacher-rating list presented by West
(1994), and the item “Accepts responsibility for behaviour” from the Keith et al. (1999)
teacher-based checklist. In both instances, not only was the wording considered to be too
general, no further descriptive details were offered by the writers to reduce the subjective
nature of the terms, thereby preventing their clear interpretation by other researchers or
teachers and most importantly, by the students involved in the research.
The process of categorising the vast array of descriptors began with considering
the headings that Bacon (1993) had originally established (i.e., Do the Work, Obey the
91
Rules, Pay Attention, Learn or Study, Try or Make an Effort and Responsibility as
Something that is Given or Taken). These headings were used as a starting point because
this researcher had investigated similar research questions to those of the current study.
However, it soon became apparent that these categories were unsuitable due to their
having a considerable degree of conceptual overlap in both their interpretation and
application (as Bacon had noted) and consequently, they were also considered as not
broad enough in scope to adequately encompass the range of themes assembled.
The final reworking of items also involved modifying those more complex items
that would potentially be difficult for young children to comprehend. In addressing this
limitation, many of the items were reworded using the simplest language possible. It was
thought that even older students would appreciate this simplification. It was also
important that the attributes incorporated within The Inventory (and hence the
questionnaires) were presented in terms (i.e., language) that reflected the sorts of
classroom realities that students of all year levels could relate to. Some items were
combined and reworded in order to not only condense this initially unwieldy list, but to
enable a better arrangement in relation to their common underlying themes.
This array of descriptive attributes was subsequently sorted and grouped
according to the dominant theme reflected by the particular statement. It is possible that
future factor analysis might reveal whether certain items would be better associated with
other themes, more appropriately assigned to another thematic category, or possibly,
relating to multiple themes. For example, any of the descriptors to seeking help from an
appropriate social source can be seen to have associations with the themes of
participation and engagement, autonomy and control, showing initiative, as well as
92
resource management. This last mentioned subscale was included in response to the
research by Ryan and Pintrich (1997), and Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986), who
both conceptualised the various social sources of help (i.e., peers, teachers, and other
adults) as resources to be managed by the student in order to positively influence their
learning and achievement. At times, decisions as to the most appropriate assignment of
the items were problematic.
While it is understood that some form of factor analysis procedure would
determine statistically the most appropriate categorisation of descriptors, it was decided
that due to the small numbers involved in the trials of the questionnaires an expert panel
would review the grouping of attributes. This panel of educational researchers who were
familiar with the descriptors was able to resolve any disagreement by further discussion.
Thus, The Inventory, which is presented in its final form in Appendix A,
consisted of a total of 40 attitudinal and behavioural items, under the following distinct
subscales:
a) Orientation Towards School and Learning (7 items)
b) Active Participation in Learning Activities (6 items)
c) Autonomy and Control of Learning (10 items)
d) Initiative (6 items)
e) Management of Learning Resources (6 items), and
f) Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour (5 items).
93
It was also considered that these six categories, while allowing a workable means
by which to group various items according to their common theme, would also form the
basis of the subscales by which students’ self-reports would be analysed.
Adapting The Inventory for Use in the Questionnaires
As noted above, The Inventory provided the basis for both the SURLQ and the
SRLABQ. As described below, the 40 items comprising six subscale categories were then
reworded so that the same list could serve two distinct purposes.
In the Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire
(the SURLQ) (i.e., investigating students’ understandings of the concept of responsibility
for learning), all items were presented in the form of descriptive statements to which
students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement on a six-point
Likert-type response scale. Participants responded by recording a number between 1 and
6, where 1 indicates “Very Strongly Disagree” and 6 indicates “Very Strongly Agree. All
items were prefaced by the leading statement, “In my opinion, responsible learners show
they.…”.
The second questionnaire, known as the Students’ Self-Reported Learning
Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (the SRLABQ), asked students to rate
themselves (again on a six-point Likert-type response scale) as to the degree to which
they perceived themselves as being responsible for their own learning (i.e., the degree to
which the statements consistently applied to them). Participants responded by recording a
number between 1 and 6, where 1 indicates “Never True OF Me” and 6 indicates
94
“Always True of Me. In this questionnaire all items were prefaced by the leading
statement, “As a learner in class, I.…”. (Refer Appendix B)
Adding The Open-Ended Question
One concern that arose toward the end of the instrument development and trialling
process related to properly addressing the first research question of determining how
students themselves have understood and defined the concept of responsibility for
learning. It was felt that the survey should also allow students greater freedom of
expression with regard to this question. In concurrence with the interview-based research
of both Bacon (1993) and Warton (1997), where individuals were given the opportunity
to respond in an open-ended format to questions relating to their understanding of
responsibility for learning (or, as in the latter study, responsibility for homework), this
type of question was subsequently added to the survey. Thus, in order to avoid any
tendency for the students’ responses to this question to be influenced by the items in the
Likert-type response questionnaires, this single component was inserted at the beginning
of the survey. It was important therefore that students completed the open-ended question,
prior to being exposed to the other questionnaires.
During the introduction to the open-ended question, respondents were advised
that they should think of a responsible learner both in terms of the sorts of things that
responsible learners would do (i.e., learning behaviours) as well as the sorts of things that
responsible learners would think or believe (i.e., their attitudes towards school and
learning). It was also important to allow adequate space on the survey sheet so as to not
limit the students from giving as much detail as they wanted to this question.
95
Considering that research in the area of responsibility for learning appears to be
relatively undeveloped (particularly in comparison with self-regulated learning), it is
argued that by utilising an open-ended questionnaire that asked students to provide their
own original perspectives of the essential aspects of responsibility for learning, that this
research has the potential to make an important contribution to the existing literature.
Thus, the findings from these surveys should provide the basis for further analysis of
these research questions by other means in the future.
The Final Student Multi-Measure Survey
Thus, following all phases of development, the student data collection instrument,
in its final form, comprised the following three components:
Part A:
The Open-Ended Question – investigating students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning.
Part B:
The Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire
(SURLQ) – a 40 item, Likert-type response questionnaire, based on The
Responsibility For Learning Inventory.
Part C:
The Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire
(SRLABQ) – a 40 item, Likert-type response questionnaire, based on The
Responsibility For Learning Inventory.
96
As is shown in Appendix B, all items in the SURLQ and the SRLABQ (although
having been initially grouped under the six subscale categories introduced above) were
presented to students with the subscale headings removed and the items randomly
rearranged. It was therefore important, that during the various data analysis procedures
the descriptive data for the 40 individual items were combined according to their
thematic groupings so that subscale scores could be calculated (refer Data Analysis
Procedures).
Procedures
This section details two main sets of processes involved in applying the data
collection measures that were described above, including firstly, the recruitment of, and
access to, the student sample group and secondly, the administering of the survey and the
recording of students’ responses.
Recruitment and Access to Students
Some 22 Australian schools within a relatively small geographical area were
initially approached. It was prudent to have all respondents enrolled at schools from
within the same educational precinct, thereby reducing any socio-economic and ethnic
sampling variations. The recruitment of schools and teachers began with a phone call to
determine interest and an appropriate contact person.
Following this initial contact an information and consent package (approved by
the Queensland Education Department) was mailed to interested schools. After further
97
liaison with schools and various teachers, final access was gained to 14 individual class
groups within a total of 7 schools (i.e., 4 primary and 3 secondary) situated in the same
administrative district. It was evident that some schools declined to participate in the
research because of their preoccupation with their various end-of-year priorities.
As the survey was administered to students while they remained in their usual
class groupings, it was important to have met with individual class teachers beforehand.
These meetings involved negotiating suitable times for the surveys to be administered,
making teachers aware of their contributions (including, providing support for students,
as required, and in supplying achievement level data), and providing the opportunity for
their questions to be answered. In only one class was it necessary for an alternative
activity to be arranged so that non-participants were catered for.
Ethics Approval
As this research involved human participants, it was a requirement of the
University to have ethical approval from the relevant committee. This approval included
providing evidence that issues relating to the general areas of recruitment (i.e.,
appropriate communications with school administrators and teachers), consent (i.e., an
appropriate information and consent package being available to parents and students),
and the potential risks (i.e., concerns about confidentiality, the use of data, and the
availability of support to students while completing the survey) and benefits (e.g.,
opportunities for self-reflection on learning behaviours and attitudes) to the students
themselves, had been addressed. The government education authorities also required
similar ethical standards to be met before granting approval for schools to be approached.
98
Administering The Survey
Having conducted a series of trials of this survey, it was evident that a number of
issues needed to be addressed in order to ensure that useful and reliable data were
forthcoming. These issues related specifically to enabling students to be informed and
comfortable about their participation in the survey. The initial contact with the students
was particularly critical to achieving these aims and involved introducing the surveys to
the student group, encouraging maximum participation by attempting to allay any
personal concerns, answering individual questions, and providing support to students,
while managing the time available.
In introducing the survey to participants, it was important to explain in simple
language, the purpose of the study and the format that it would take. At this stage
students were reminded that they were free to withdraw their participation at any point.
Their involvement in the research was encouraged by stressing to them that all responses
would remain strictly confidential and that any communication regarding the collected
data would occur only in general terms (i.e., class or year level totals and broad
comments or conclusions). Students were also informed that their individual responses
would not be available to teachers or school administrators and would have absolutely no
impact on their assessment or relationships with teachers.
The order of presentation of the open-ended question and the two questionnaires
was of prime importance in attracting honest and unbiased responses from the students. It
was essential that the open-ended questionnaire be completed first, so that students would
not have any suggestion or clues as to what the researcher was looking for. As this type
of question sought to attract students’ individual and original ideas, it was also important
99
that no hints or insinuations were inadvertently provided during the introduction to the
research topic. The researcher also needed to be mindful of this issue when responding to
students’ queries or requests for help during the Likert-type response questionnaires.
Some care was required in giving an example or clarifying the item in question in such a
way that did not lead the respondent towards any particular conclusion.
Following the open-ended question, students were then presented with the Self-
Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviour Questionnaire (the SRLABQ) that contained
the 40 descriptive items. Consequently, students reflected on their own learning attributes
without having been previously exposed to these themes. It was considered that if the
Likert-type response questionnaires had been presented in the reverse order then
students’ self-reports might be influenced by their responses to the SURLQ. In the
SRLABQ it was emphasised to students that they should view themselves candidly,
rather than in relation to how others may have perceived them or expected them to be.
When presenting the Likert-type response questionnaires it was also necessary to
give practical, yet unrelated examples, so that students might better differentiate between
the six points of the response scale. As descriptive labeling was not applied to all of the
points, students needed firstly to decide which side of the scale was appropriate (i.e.,
either agreement or disagreement), followed by deciding the strength of that feeling (by
recording either a 4, 5 or 6 for agreement, for example). In varying degrees, it was also
necessary to offer informal support to some students (at their request) during the survey
period. In the case of the younger age groups the accompanying class teacher was able to
assist in this role.
100
When administering the survey, it was also important to manage the available
time effectively, so that adequate time was available for instructions to be given,
questionnaires to be completed, and for students’ questions to be answered. While the
older year levels were usually limited to a set block of time (about 40 minutes) before
having to move to their next class, the Year 5 and Year 7 classes usually had some
flexibility in this regard. However, in most cases the questionnaires were completed
within the allotted time-frame of 40 minutes, thereby allowing for a short class discussion
of the ideas generated by the survey.
Data Analysis Procedures
The collection of student data involved administering the multi-measure survey to
a large sample of students to determine firstly, how students perceived the concept of
responsibility for learning, then secondly, how they have reported their own learning
related attitudes and behaviours, and finally, the extent of the relationship between these
two measures. Thus, the data gained from the open-ended question and the two Likert-
type response questionnaires were analysed using various qualitative and quantitative
processes. These processes are described below, beginning with the open-ended question
data, followed by the data from the SURLQ and the SRLABQ.
101
The Open-Ended Question
Analysing the bank of responses to the open-ended question necessitated the use
of a qualitative process whereby the themes within students’ statements were extracted,
collated into thematic groupings and their frequencies tallied. These data were analysed
by using the constant comparative method of content analysis, as outlined by Strauss and
Corbin (1998). In this iterative process, the written statements were read critically a
number of times with the key words and phrases being highlighted against the irrelevant
or unusable expressions.
These highlighted terms and phrases were then sorted and assembled according to
similarities and differences in their meanings. The grouping of statements involved
conceptualising the recurring themes in the same way in which the thematic categories
comprising The Inventory were originally established. Thus, by applying the conceptual
framework of The Inventory to these terms and phrases, it was possible to arrange them
according to a similar set of thematic categories. Consequently, the frequencies of these
categories and their associated terms and phrases were recorded in a table, facilitating the
comparison of this data with that derived from the SURLQ. General comparisons of both
the category totals with the subscale mean scores and the various terms and phrases from
both questionnaires were made.
The SURLQ and the SRLABQ Data
Once the numerical responses for the SURLQ and the SRLABQ were entered into
the computer, the same statistical analysis processes were carried out for each set of data.
102
In the first phase, descriptive data (i.e., means and standard deviations) were calculated
for the 40 individual items in each set. Following this, the scores for the items were
sorted according to their designated subscales and then combined to produce subscale
mean and standard deviation scores. Although the subscale data were the principal focus
in these investigations, the individual item scores were also noted as a point of interest.
Reliability and Validity
As these questionnaires had been specifically developed for this study and
therefore had not been employed in any previous research, it is important that some
appraisal of their reliability and validity be presented. For convenience the reliability
coefficient results are presented below.
With respect to students’ understanding of responsibility for learning (i.e.,
Research Question 1) the Cronbach Alpha coefficients of reliability (Cronbach, 1990) for
each of the subscales in the SURLQ yielded the following reliability coefficients for the
six subscales: (a) Orientation Towards School and Learning (7 items; r = .83); (b) Active
Participation in Learning Activities (6 items; r = .85); (c) Autonomy and Control of
Learning (10 items; r = .84); (d) Initiative (6 items; r = .82); (e) Management of Learning
Resources (6 items; r = .75); and (f) Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour (5
items; r = .80).
With respect to students’ self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours (i.e.,
Research Question 2) the Cronbach Alpha calculations of reliability for the six subscales
in the SRLABQ were: (a) Orientation Towards School and Learning (7 items; r = .78);
(b) Active Participation in Learning Activities (6 items; r = .83); (c) Autonomy and
103
Control of Learning (10 items; r = .83); (d) Initiative (6 items; r = .76); (e) Management
of Learning Resources (6 items; r = .75); and (f) Cooperation and Control of Classroom
Behaviour (5 items; r = .82).
The face validity of these questionnaires is upheld in two important ways. Firstly,
the subscales and their associated descriptors, as established in The Inventory (which
formed the basis for both the SURLQ and the SRLABQ) have been drawn directly from
the existing research (refer earlier section). Secondly, the validity of these instruments is
also enhanced by having the assignment of the 40 descriptive items to their respective
subscales reviewed by three knowledgeable educational researchers. As discussed earlier,
differences of opinion were resolved by further discussion.
Year Level and Gender Differences
Both sets of descriptive data were also cross-tabulated by year level and gender,
allowing statistically significant differences to be noted. Multivariate analysis of variance
techniques (i.e., MANOVA) were applied to both sets of data in determining the main
effects of the independent variables (i.e., year level, gender, achievement level) with
subscales of the SURLQ and the SRLABQ (the dependent variables). The Wilks’
Lambda statistic was used to determine if the overall MANOVA was statistically
significant (p<.05). Where the MANOVA was statistically significant, follow-up
ANOVA were conducted on statistically significant main effects and interactions (p<.05).
Subsequently, the extent of the differences between year level and gender on each of the
two sets of subscales respectively, were determined by applying Cohen’s Effect Size
formulae (as cited in Grimm & Yarnold, 1995).
104
Determining the Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For
Learning and Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
Finally, the strength of the association between students’ understandings of the
concept of responsibility for learning, and their perceptions of their own learning
attitudes and behaviours (i.e., Research Question 3) was investigated by two statistical
analysis procedures. In the first instance, the correlations between respective subscales in
each of the SURLQ and the SRLABQ was calculated by the application of the Pearson
Correlation technique (as cited in Grimm & Yarnold, 1995) (e.g., the correlation between
Orientation Towards School and Learning subscale in the SURLQ and the corresponding
subscale in the SRLABQ). Statistical significance of the correlation analysis was set at p
< .01 to account for Type 1 errors.
In the second case, mean scores for the corresponding subscales in the SURLQ
and the SRLABQ were compared and the differences noted. The effect size of the
differences between the respective subscales were also calculated.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined the design and methods of this study. It has also
described the processes that led to the data being collected and analysed as well as the
reasoning by which the reliability and validity of the data were established. Consequently,
the presentation and further analysis of the data has been undertaken with reasonable
105
confidence that such data will enable valid and reliable conclusions to be drawn in
respect to the stated research questions.
The next chapter presents in detail, the findings of this study, including students’
open-ended statements and their responses to both the SURLQ and the SRLABQ as well
as an analysis of the association between these two measures.
106
107
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings of the research that have been derived from
administering those data collection processes that were described in the previous chapter.
These results include the analyses of the three sets of data collected from the open-ended
question and the SURLQ and the SRLABQ, with appropriate references being made to
the complete statistical data tables presented in the Appendices. This chapter is arranged
in a way that reflects both the research questions (as stated in Chapters 1 and 3) and the
specific data collection processes employed in the study (as outlined in the previous
chapter).
The data pertaining to how the students expressed their understanding of the
concept of responsibility for learning (incorporating both the responses to the open-ended
question and the Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire),
followed by the data from the Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and
Behaviours Questionnaire. Finally, these two sets of data were combined in order to
determine the association between students’ understandings of responsibility for learning
and their perceptions of themselves as learners.
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
As stated in Chapter 1, Research Question 1 has addressed how students
themselves have comprehended the concept of responsibility for learning. The following
108
section presents the findings pertaining to this question, firstly in the open-ended format,
followed by the descriptive data for the SURLQ.
The Open-Ended Question Data
Due to the open-ended nature of this question, it was likely that the number of
themes and key descriptive words would significantly exceed the number of respondents.
While all the 286 participants (refer Table 3.1) gave some form of written response, it
was pleasing to note that only 13 replies yielded no useful information due to their being
either unrelated to the question, vague or imprecise, unreadable, or unanswered. A total
of some 706 descriptive statements were derived from the remaining 273 participants
who gave meaningful and useable responses giving a response rate of 96.47 per cent.
Attention was given to the task of determining the extent to which the various
responses offered were actually conceptually similar, or distinct enough to warrant their
being treated as separate ideas or categories. Once the wide range of recurrent ideas had
been identified and grouped together, it was found that students across all age groups
expressed their understandings of responsible learners in terms of holding or displaying a
variety of attitudes or behaviours relating to their classroom learning. A complete
summary of the open-ended responses and their conceptual grouping under their most
appropriate categories (including frequencies and category totals) is presented in
Appendix C.
109
Table 4.1 Total Frequencies of Thematic Categories and the More Prevalent Attributes Rank Thematic
Category Total # of responses
Most Prevalent Attributes in category (# of responses)
1. Active Participation in Learning Activities
219 (31.0 %)
• “pays attention” or “listens to the teacher” (89 responses)
• “active participation and involvement in learning activities” (inc. “responds willingly”, “works hard”, “attempts everything”, “thinks”, and “applies themselves” (55 responses)
• “completes their work”, (either “quickly”, “on time”, or “to a good standard”) (48 responses)
2. Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour
201 (28.5 %)
• “being well-behaved and sensible”, “doing the right things”, “not mucking
around” (48 responses) • “being considerate”, “respectful”, “helpful”,
and “caring towards others” (42 responses) • “showing they are well-mannered”, “not
talking at the wrong time”’ “not arguing or being rude”, or “not being smart towards the teacher” (30 responses)
3. Orientation Towards School and Learning
104 (14.7 %)
• “always doing their best” (or “attempting to do their best” (47 responses)
• “having a positive attitude towards school” and/or “having a willingness to learn” (31 responses)
4. Autonomy and Control of Learning
59 (8.3 %)
• “is accountable”; “takes ownership of results”; “takes responsibility for actions” (inc. mistakes); “accepts blame for actions” (i.e., failures); “faces consequences”; “does not blame the teacher” (19 responses)
5. General or Non-Specific Attributes
58 (8.2 %)
• “achieves well”; “good at learning” (22 responses)
• “is mature”; “takes life seriously”; “thinks about actions”; “sets a good example” (14 responses)
6. Initiative 38 (5.4 %)
• “works without teacher controls” (i.e., instructions” and/or “reminders”) (15 responses)
7. Management of Learning Resources
27 (3.8 %)
• “is organised”; “takes care of their work and/or property” (17 responses)
110
The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 showed that there were six categories of
attitudes and behaviours that characterised responsible learners. By grouping students’
statements according to the underlying attributes expressed, the same six thematic
categories as identified in the literature were evident (and reflected the structure of the
Likert-type response questionnaires). Further, there was another group of statements that
were categorised as “General or Non-Specific Attributes”. These seven thematic
categories, along with a sample of their most frequently expressed attributes, were ranked
according to their total response frequency. Table 4.1 presents the total response
frequencies of each thematic category along with the frequencies of the more prevalent
attributes.
This data table (Table 4.1) shows that when the total number of responses for
each thematic category were compared, two groups of descriptors had attracted
significantly more responses than the others. It was clear, that in the open-ended format,
students associated responsible learners with a variety of behavioural attributes that
related to the categories of Active Participation in Learning Activities (total number of
responses: 219) and the Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour (total number
of responses: 201). Thus, it could be stated that, students have predominantly described
responsible learners in terms of their application to set learning and classwork
requirements as well as standards of social conduct in the classroom. This idea of
behaving appropriately is also reflected in the one attribute that had attracted significantly
more responses than any other single descriptor, namely that of “paying attention” and/or
“listening to the teacher”, which attracted over 12 per cent of the total number of
111
responses (i.e., 89 responses; in the thematic category “Active Participation in Learning
Activities”).
Table 4.1 also shows the relatively low scoring categories of statements. Apart
from the unusable responses, the next lowest thematic categories of “Initiative”, and
“Management of Learning Resources” each attracted only 38 responses (representing
5.4 % of the total) and 27 (representing 3.8 % of the total) respectively. It is also worth
noting that following the highest scoring categories, the total response scores for the
thematic categories of “Orientation Towards School and Learning” (104 responses;
14.7 % of total responses) and “Autonomy and Control of Learning” (59 responses;
8.3 % of total responses) have indicated that, to a lesser extent, students did not generally
recognise the importance of attitudinal and individual control components of
responsibility for learning, as was suggested by the literature (refer Chapter 2). The next
major section in this chapter will show whether this emphasis on application to learning
and classroom behaviour is supported by the data derived from the SURLQ.
It is also important to note that the fifth thematic category listed in Table 4.1 was
not one of the original subscales identified in the literature. This additional group of
descriptors includes those themes that were not incorporated in any of the other
categories. This category has contributed to the general portrayal of students’
understandings of the concept of a responsible learner by presenting a variety of general
personal attributes as well as claiming that such a learner “takes ownership and
responsibility for their work”. Note also that this last mentioned descriptor reflects those
nondescript statements that originated in those reports in the literature that highlighted
112
how teachers have described the concept of responsibility for learning (Keith et al., 1999;
West, 1994).
These issues, as well as a number of others arising from this data will be
discussed further and in more detail in the following chapter (Chapter 5). The next
section presents the descriptive data for the SURLQ which also investigated students’
understandings of the concept of responsibility for learning (Research Question 1).
The SURLQ Data
It was found that for unknown reasons some 16 participants did not complete the
SURLQ in such a way that made the responses useable, leaving a total of 270 complete
questionniares where the data could be analysed. While this total participant number
comprises specific year level and gender subgroups, descriptive and comparative results
for these subgroups will be presented in a later section in this chapter. The subscale mean
scores and the highest scoring individual descriptive items are presented in the following
sections.
Subscale Data
Students’ responses to the 40 items of the SURLQ produced the following
descriptive data (i.e., means and standard deviations for the six subscales) which is shown
in the table below. Further data relating to this analysis are reported in greater detail in
Appendix F.
113
Table 4.2 The SURLQ: Descriptive Data and Position of Rank Order for Subscales
Subscale
Mean Rank Order
Standard Deviation
Orientation Towards School and Learning 5.21 1 0.77 Active Participation in Learning Activities 5.18 2 0.76 Autonomy and Control of Learning 4.96 6 0.74 Initiative 5.08 4 0.79 Management of Learning Resources 5.01 5 0.81 Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour 5.14 3 0.81
Students showed a considerably high level of agreement with each of the
subscales as evidenced by the finding that all the mean scores were above 4.95 (on a 6-
point scale) and that no standard deviation was found to be higher than 0.81. It was also
noted that while the difference between the highest and lowest subscale mean scores was
not high (i.e., 0.25), the subscale of “Orientation Towards School and Learning” was
shown to have the highest mean score. The remaining subscales of “Active Participation
in Learning Activities”, “Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour”, “Initiative”,
“Management of Learning Resources”, and finally, “Autonomy and Control of Learning”
followed this subscale in rank order, according to their subscale mean scores.
Individual Items
While this study predominantly focused on the six responsibility for learning
subscales, it is interesting to note that overall, students have shown a high level of
agreement with virtually all of the 40 descriptive items presented in the questionnaire (i.e.,
all individual item mean scores ranged between 4.77 and 5.43, while 26 of the 40 items
scored above 5.00 on the 6-point Likert response scale). It was also noted that the single
descriptive item that students reported the highest level of agreement with (i.e., the single
114
item with the highest mean score) appropriately belonged to the “Orientation Towards
School and Learning” subscale. Thus, the descriptor “Believes that school is important
for future success.” (M = 5.43) reflected the importance given in the literature to the
internalised attitudinal aspects of responsibility for learning that were presented in
Chapter 2. A full rank order list of the 40 individual questionnaire items (with means,
standard deviations and the subscale to which they belong) is presented in Appendix D.
Comparing the Open-Ended Question Responses with the SURLQ Data
As discussed earlier, the conceptual analysis of the vast array of open-ended
responses produced an assembly of attitudinal and behavioural descriptive attributes that
was not too dissimilar to those of the SURLQ. However, a number of disparities between
these two sets of data were noted.
When the rank order of subscales was compared, it was noted that the two highest
scoring thematic categories from the open-ended data, namely, “Participation in Learning
Activities” and “Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour” did not head the list
in the SURLQ data. In the latter set of data these subscales were outscored by the
subscale of “Orientation Towards School and Learning”. Thus, it was concluded that
when students were free to express in their own words their understandings of the
concept of responsibility for learning (i.e., the open-ended questionnaire) they favoured a
predominantly behavioural portrayal, as evidenced by the extent to which the total
number of responses for the thematic categories of “Participation in Learning Activities”
and “Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour” exceeded the next most frequent
115
category (i.e., “Orientation Towards School and Learning”) which incorporated a number
of attitudinal attributes (refer Appendix D).
It was also evident that the two sets of data produced another noteworthy
discrepancy with respect to the two subscales of “Initiative” and “Management of
Learning Resources”. When students were presented with descriptive items belonging to
these subscales (i.e., in the Likert-type responses to the SURLQ) they were well
supported (i.e., with subscale mean scores of 5.08 and 5.01, respectively). This finding
contrasted with a general lack of support for these subscales reported in the open-ended
question data (i.e., 5.4% and 3.8% of total responses, respectively).
Although the “Autonomy and Control of Learning” subscale was strongly
advocated within the literature and consequently, formed the thematic category in The
Responsibility For Learning Inventory with the largest number of attributes, and therefore
being the subscale with the highest number of individual descriptive items in the SURLQ
(refer Appendix A), it yielded a relatively low level of support in the open-ended
response data (i.e., 8.4% of the total number of responses) as well as having the lowest
mean score among all subscales in the SURLQ data.
Consequently, when the open-ended statements were arranged within their most
appropriate thematic categories it was clear that, irrespective of the number of responses
that could be attributed to each descriptor, they closely mirrored the specific items that
comprised The Responsibility For Learning Inventory and subsequently utilised in the
SURLQ.
While it was not a difficult task to organise the open-ended responses into similar
thematic categories to those of The Inventory, there however remained one set of
116
responses that was considered as being supplementary to the original six classifications,
hence the “General or Non-Specific Attributes” category.
Year Level and Gender Differences in Students’ Understandings
of Responsibility For Learning
As presented in Chapter 1, Research Question 1 incorporated the investigation of
whether differences in students’ understandings of responsibility for learning existed
between year level and gender subgroups. The possibility that year level and gender
differences existed within the subscale responses was assessed using a multivariate
analysis of variance technique (i.e., Wilks’ Lambda, p<.05). Main effects for year level
and gender were statistically significant, but achievement level was not statistically
significant (p>.05). Accordingly, year level and gender main effects for the various
subscales were further investigated by ANOVA. Interactions between these independent
variables were not statistically significant and therefore were not considered further.
Year Level Differences
When ANOVA was applied to each of the six responsibility for learning
subscales separately, the following statistically significant differences between subscale
mean scores for various year level groups were found:
(a) Orientation Towards School and Learning (by year level): F(3, 270) = 5.65,
p < .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of
statistically significant differences (p < .05). There was a statistically significant
117
difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.53) and the Year 7 (M = 5.10) scores. The Effect
Size of this difference was 0.64. There was also a statistically significant difference
between the Year 5 (M = 5.53) and the Year 9 (M = 4.97) scores. The Effect Size (d) of
this difference was 0.84.
(b) Active Participation in Learning Activities (by year level): F(3, 270) = 7.18,
p < .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of
statistically significant differences (p < .05). There was a statistically significant
difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.51) and the Year 7 (M = 5.16) scores (d = 0.55).
There also was a statistically significant difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.51) and the
Year 9 (M = 4.83) scores (d = 0.97).
(c) Autonomy and Control of Learning (by year level): F(3, 270) = 7.80, p < .05.
Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of statistically
significant differences (p < .05). There was a statistically significant difference between
the Year 5 (M = 5.35) and the Year 7 (M = 4.88) scores (d = 0.66). There also was a
statistically significant difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.35) and the Year 9 (M =
4.64) scores (d = 1.04). There also was a statistically significant difference between the
Year 5 (M = 5.35) and the Year 11 (M = 4.93) scores (d = 0.57).
(d) Initiative (by year level): F(3, 270) = 8.60, p < .05. Comparison of pairs of
mean scores within this subscale showed a number of statistically significant differences
(p < .05). There was a statistically significant difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.47)
and the Year 7 (M = 4.97) scores (d = 0.75). There also was a statistically significant
difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.47) and the Year 9 (M = 4.79) scores (d = 1.00).
118
There was a statistically significant difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.47) and the
Year 11 (M = 5.06) scores (d = 0.55).
(e) Management of Learning Resources (by year level): F(3, 270) = 9.91, p < .05.
Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of statistically
significant differences (p < .05). There was a statistically significant difference between
the Year 5 (M = 5.44) and the Year 7 (M = 4.96) scores (d = 0.74). There also was a
statistically significant difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.44) and the Year 9 (M =
4.62) scores (d = 1.22). There also was a statistically significant difference between the
Year 5 (M = 5.44) and the Year 11 (M = 4.97) scores (d = 0.67).
(f) Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour (by year level): F(3, 270) =
9.88, p < .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number
of statistically significant differences (p < .05). There was a statistically significant
difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.56) and the Year 7 (M = 5.10) scores (d = 0.69).
There also was a statistically significant difference between the Year 5 (M = 5.56) and the
Year 9 (M = 4.97) scores (d = 0.99). There also was a statistically significant difference
between the Year 5 (M = 5.56) and the Year 11 (M = 5.04) scores (d = 0.72).
In all subscales the subscale mean scores for Year 5 were consistently found to be
higher than that of each other year level group. Year 5 students on the whole, more than
any other year level group, tended towards a higher level of agreement with the portrayal
of a responsible learner as described by the attitudinal and behavioural items presented in
the questionnaire. In some instances, the effect size (i.e., as per Cohen’s formulae and
designated “d”) of particular year level differences was considered to be quite large,
ranging between a lowest figure of 0.44 through to 1.22. It was also noted that the Year 5
119
and Year 9 comparisons consistently producing an effect size of greater than 0.8 in each
subscale. These high effect size results (which ranged between 0.56 and 0.82) are
typically, according to Cohen (as cited by Grimm & Yarnold, 1995), of high educational
significance, and indicate the extent to which the subscale mean scores between various
year level groups have differed.
Gender Differences
Comparisons between gender groups in each of the six subscales showed that the
female subscale mean scores consistently exceeded those of the males. However, the only
difference that was statistically significant was found in the subscale of Cooperation and
Control of Classroom Behaviour (F(1, 270) = 6.60, p < .05) where the female subscale
score (M = 5.24) exceeded the male subscale score (M = 5.01). The resulting Cohens’
Effect Size calculation of 0.29 affirms that in this instance the difference, while
statistically significant, is not overly educationally significant (as cited by Grimm &
Yarnold, 1995).
A full summary table of subscale mean scores by year level and gender for the six
subscales pertaining to students’ understandings of responsibility for learning is presented
in Appendix F.
Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
As stated in Chapter 1, Research Question 2 has addressed the question of
determining how students themselves have reported their own learning related attitudes
120
and behaviours according to a predetermined set of responsibility for learning criteria.
The following section presents the findings pertaining to this question, as was
investigated by the SRLABQ.
The SRLABQ Data
As in the SURLQ, a small number of participants did not complete the SRLABQ
in such a way that made the responses useable, leaving a total of 277 complete
questionniares where the data could be analysed. In similar fashion to the SURLQ, data
derived from all respondents were analysed descriptively and comparatively, including
consideration of differences in responses of various year level and gender subgroups. The
subscale mean scores and the highest scoring individual descriptive items are presented in
the following sections.
Subscales
Once the mean scores and standard deviations for the various individual items and
the six subscales were computed, it was possible to determine the extent to which
students reported themselves as possessing the attitudes and behaviours of responsible
learners. The responses to the questionnaire produced the following descriptive data (i.e.,
means and standard deviations) for the six subscales which is shown in the table below.
Further data relating to this analysis are reported in greater detail in Appendix G.
121
Table 4.3 The SRLABQ: Descriptive Data and Position of Rank Order for Subscales
Subscale
Mean Rank Order
Standard Deviation
Orientation Towards School and Learning 4.67 1 0.80 Active Participation in Learning Activities 4.40 6 0.84 Autonomy and Control of Learning 4.45 4 0.74 Initiative 4.41 5 0.79 Management of Learning Resources 4.46 3 0.83 Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour 4.67 1 0.88
While each of the subscale mean scores were lower than the corresponding
subscale scores of the SURLQ (refer previous section), it was still evident that students
overall, indicated to a high degree that they saw themselves as being responsible learners
(as determined by their assessment of their own learning attitudes and behaviours). The
analysis of the descriptive data showed that all subscale mean scores were at least 4.40.
It was also noted that while the differences between the highest and lowest
subscale mean scores were not high (i.e., a range of 0.27), the two subscales of
Orientation Towards School and Learning, and Cooperation and Control of Classroom
Behaviour (both having mean scores of 4.67) were found to be the areas in which
students rated themselves most highly. The rank order of the remaining subscale mean
scores was Management of Learning Resources (M = 4.46), Autonomy and Control of
Learning (M = 4.45), Initiative (M = 4.41), and finally, Active Participation in Learning
Activities (M = 4.40).
Descriptive Items
The finding that, according to the subscale mean scores, these students regarded
themselves to a high degree as being responsible learners, is confirmed by the descriptive
122
data (i.e., means and standard deviations) for most of the individual descriptive items
presented in the questionnaire (where 38 of the 40 items recorded a mean score above
4.00 points) (refer Appendix E).
Students described themselves most highly in terms of one particular attribute,
namely that of “Believing that school is important for future success.” (M = 5.28), which
was incorporated within the “Orientation Towards School and Learning” subscale. This
attribute is significant because it describes an important attitudinal component of
responsibility for learning that could potentially underlie all behavioural characteristics of
such learners. A complete list in rank order (according to mean scores), of the 40 items
comprising the SRLABQ, including descriptive data (i.e., mean scores and standard
deviations) and the associated subscale is provided in Appendix E.
As noted in the analysis of the self-report subscale scores, these individual item
scores were not as high as the levels of the corresponding item in the SURLQ. For
example, the item “Believing that school is important for future success” yielded a mean
score of 5.43 when surveyed as part of the SURLQ, and 5.28 as part of the SRLABQ.
Further evidence of these differences between corresponding individual item mean scores
can be determined by comparing the corresponding subscale data in Appendices D and E.
Year Level and Gender Differences
As in the analysis of the SURLQ, the possibility that year level and/or gender
differences existed within the subscales data of the SRLABQ was assessed using a
multivariate analysis of variance technique (i.e., Wilks’ Lambda, p < .05).
123
Main effects for year level were statistically significant for each of the subscales,
while statistically significant differences in achievement level subgroups were found in
two subscales only (p < .05). Because no gender main effects were found to be
statistically significant at this level, they were not considered further. Accordingly, year
level main effects for the various subscales were further investigated by ANOVA.
Although not required by the research questions, the interaction between year
level and gender was also investigated. The only interaction that was statistically
significant was found in the one subscale of Initiative (p < .05). The statistically
significant differences and interactions are discussed in turn.
Year Level Differences
When ANOVA was applied to each of the six responsibility for learning subscales
separately, the following statistically significant differences between subscale
mean scores (with accompanying effect size statistics: d) for various year level groups
were found:
(a) Orientation Towards School and Learning (by year level): F(3, 277) = 17.01,
p < .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of
statistically significant differences (p < .05). There were statistically significant
differences between the Year 5 mean scores (M = 5.13) and the mean scores of the Year
7’s (M = 4.60; d = 0.82), the Year 9’s (M = 4.27; d = 1.15), and the Year 11’s (M = 4.68;
d = 0.64). There was also a statistically significant difference between the Year 11 (M =
4.68) and the Year 9 (M = 4.27) scores (d = 0.50).
124
(b) Active Participation in Learning Activities (by year level): F(3, 277) = 12.52,
p < .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of
statistically significant differences (p < .05). There were statistically significant
differences between the Year 5 mean scores (M = 4.90) and the mean scores of the Year
7’s (M = 4.36; d = 0.73), the Year 9’s (M = 4.20; d = 0.84), and the Year 11’s (M = 4.19;
d = 0.89).
(c) Autonomy and Control of Learning (by year level): F(3, 277) = 18.99, p < .05.
Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of statistically
significant differences (p < .05). There were statistically significant differences between
the Year 5 mean scores (M = 4.97) and the mean scores of the Year 7’s (M = 4.45; d =
0.81), the Year 9’s (M = 4.04; d = 1.43), and the Year 11’s (M = 4.36; d = 0.90). There
were also statistically significant differences between the Year 7 mean scores (M = 4.45)
and the Year 9 mean scores (M = 4.04) (d = 0.64), and between the Year 11 mean scores
(M = 4.36) and the Year 9 mean scores (M = 4.04) (d = 0.48).
(d) Initiative (by year level): F(3, 277) = 17.07, p < .05. Comparison of pairs of
mean scores within this subscale showed a number of statistically significant differences
(p < .05). There were statistically significant differences between the Year 5 mean scores
(M = 4.94) and the mean scores of the Year 7’s (M = 4.37) (d = 0.88), the Year 9’s (M =
4.05) (d = 1.25), and the Year 11’s (M = 4.33) (d = 0.88).
(e) Management of Learning Resources (by year level): F(3, 277) = 18.96, p
< .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a number of
statistically significant differences (p < .05). There were statistically significant
differences between the Year 5 mean scores (M = 5.07) and the mean scores of the Year
125
7’s (M = 4.37) (d = 1.03), the Year 9’s (M = 4.07) (d = 1.13), and the Year 11’s (M =
4.34) (d = 1.04).
(f) Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour (by year level): F(3, 277) =
13.40, p < .05. Comparison of pairs of mean scores within this subscale showed a
number of statistically significant differences (p < .05). There were statistically
significant differences between the Year 5 mean scores (M = 5.19) and the mean scores
of the Year 7’s (M = 4.50) (d = 0.81), the Year 9’s (M = 4.35) (d = 1.00), and the Year
11’s (M = 4.67) (d = 0.67).
As was noted in the analysis of year level differences in the SURLQ data, Year 5
students (more than any other year level) consistently reported themselves as having the
attitudinal and behavioural attributes of responsible learners, as evidenced by their mean
scores being higher than each of the other year levels in all of the six subscales. As
presented above, the differences in subscale mean scores between Year 5 and the other
year level groups showed an effect size (i.e., as per Cohen’s formulae) ranging between
0.8 and 1.43 in each subscale. These are relatively high effect size differences, which
according to Cohen (as discussed in Grimm and Yarnold, 1995), are of potentially high
educational significance.
It was found that in all but one subscale (Active Participation in Learning
Activities), Year 9 students rated themselves the lowest of the four year level groups in
their self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours. As shown in the above data, there
were also a number of other year level differences that were statistically significant.
These additional differences were found in the Orientation Towards School and Learning,
and Autonomy and Control of Learning subscales. These data indicate that Year 11
126
students reported themselves to have a more positive orientation towards school and
learning and feel to a greater extent that they are more autonomous and in control of their
own learning than the Year 9 subgroup. In both subscales these difference are of
moderate educational significance (according to Cohen, as discussed in Grimm &
Yarnold, 1995). An even greater difference in mean scores was found between Year 7
and Year 9 subgroups in the Autonomy subscale, indicating that the younger of these
year levels felt more in control of their learning than their older counterparts. The effect
size of this difference was higher again, indicating a moderate educational significance (d
= 0.64) between these year levels.
Year Level and Gender Interactions
For convenience, the year level and gender interaction is now considered in this
section. A statistically significant interaction was found between the independent
variables of year level and gender in one subscale only, namely the Initiative subscale
F(3, 277) = 3.156, p<.05. This interaction is displayed in Figure 4.1.
As shown in Figure 4.1, an interaction is revealed between Year 7 and Year 9 and
Year 9 and Year 11 subgroups. As this data shows, in the Initiative subscale the female
mean scores were significantly higher than the male scores for each year level, except for
Year 9 where the male mean scores were higher (d = 0.13). In the displaying of initiative
(e.g., moving on to the next task without prompting, finding and correcting mistakes, or
setting own revision or extension tasks), Year 9 females reported themselves as being not
only deficient in this area, but contrasting the female-dominant pattern prevailing within
other year levels.
127
4.87
4.264.1 4.08
5.01
4.48
3.99
4.45
3.90
4.50
5.10
5 7 9 11
Year Level
Mea
n Sc
ore
MaleFemale
Figure 4.1 Year Level x Gender Interactions for the Initiative subscale
A full summary table of mean scores according to year level and gender for the
six subscales of students’ self-reported for learning attitudes and behaviours is presented
in Appendix G.
The Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning and
Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
As stated in Chapter 1, Research Question 3 has addressed the question of
determining the association between students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours. The following section
presents the findings pertaining to this question, as investigated, firstly, by determining
128
the correlation between corresponding subscales in the SURLQ and the SRLABQ, and
secondly, by calculating the differences between corresponding subscales in the
respective sets of data.
Correlations Between Corresponding Subscales
The correlations between the six corresponding subscales from the SURLQ and
the SRLABQ were investigated by the application of the Pearson Correlation technique.
This correlation analysis (significance level set at p < .01 to account for Type 1 errors)
yielded the following coefficients: Orientation Towards School and Learning: r = .51;
Active Participation in Learning Activities: r = .40; Autonomy and Control of Learning: r
= .51; Initiative: r = .43; Management of Learning Resources: r = .43; Cooperation and
Control of Classroom Behaviour: r = .48.
This data shows that the correlation between corresponding subscales is strongest
in the Orientation Towards School and Learning subscales, while being weakest in the
Active Participation in Learning subscale. These correlation coefficients (ranging
between .40 and .51) also indicate that a statistically significant relationship exists
between how students have understood the concept of responsibility for learning and how
they have judged their own learning attributes. Whether this association between
variables can be considered in terms of causality is open to conjecture, thereby becoming
a matter for future research.
129
Differences Between Corresponding Subscales
Consideration of the differences in subscales scores showed a consistent pattern
whereby students’ self-assessments (as per total mean scores in each subscale) did not
reach the levels of their understandings of responsibility for learning in any of the
subscales (differences ranging between 0.47 and 0.78) (refer Table 4.2). These
differences have also been evaluated in terms of Cohens’ Effect Size (as cited by Grimm
& Yarnold, 1995), which yielded a medium to large differentiation between
corresponding subscale scores. The magnitude of these effect sizes highlights the
association between these variables, indicating that while students’ self-appraisements
did not reach the levels of their understandings, it is possible that they are to some degree
dependent on how these aspects of responsibility for learning are viewed.
Table 4.4 Corresponding Subscale Differences Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning and Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
Subscale
Students’ understandings
(SURLQ) N = 270
Students’ self-reports (SRLABQ)
N = 277
Mean difference SURLQ - SRLABQ
Effect size
(Cohen)d
Orientation Towards School and Learning
M = 5.21 (SD = 0.77)
M = 4.67 (SD = 0.80)
0.54 0.68
Active Participation in Learning Activities
M = 5.18 (SD = 0.76)
M = 4.40 (SD = 0.84)
0.78 0.97
Autonomy and Control of Learning
M = 4.96 (SD = 0.74)
M = 4.45 (SD = 0.74)
0.51 0.69
Initiative
M = 5.08 (SD = 0.79)
M = 4.41 (SD = 0.79)
0.67 0.85
Management of Learning Resources
M = 5.01 (SD = 0.77)
M = 4.46 (SD = 0.88)
0.55 0.69
Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour
M = 5.14 (SD = 0.81)
M = 4.67 (SD = 0.88)
0.47 0.56
130
These data indicate that students across a range of year levels have a reasonably
clear sense of the concept of responsibility for learning and that their appraisements of
their own attitudes and behaviours did not quite come up to the high levels that they have
advocated. It may also be concluded that students who tended to agree most consistently
with the established model of responsible learners (as portrayed by the six subscales) are
most likely to see themselves as holding the appropriate attitudes and applying
themselves to their learning, as evidenced by the correlations.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the findings relating to the research questions, as
presented in Chapter 1. As described in the previous chapter (Chapter 3), the data
pertaining to these questions was collected by administering a written survey (comprising
one open-ended question and two Likert-type response questionnaires) to a sample group
of school students from a range of year levels.
This chapter presented and analysed two distinct sets of data pertaining to the first
research question (i.e., the open-ended question responses and the Likert-type response
data), followed by a similar analysis of the data that was derived from the SRLABQ.
The analysis of the data from the SURLQ and the SRLABQ also included an
investigation of the statistically significant main effects and interactions of year level and
gender on the various subscales within the two sets of data. Finally, mean scores from the
corresponding subscales (i.e., from the SURLQ and the SRLABQ) were compared in
131
order to determine the association between students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours.
With respect to determining students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning, it was found that in the open-ended questionnaire, students principally favoured
a behavioural focus as evidenced by the dominance of the two thematic categories of
Active Participation in Learning Activities, and Cooperation and Control of Classroom
Behaviour and the individual item of paying attention and/or listening to the teacher.
While an attitudinal perspective was less evident in this format, the SURLQ data showed
a marginally greater focus on attitudinal aspects along with a high agreement with all the
responsibility for learning subscales. The SURLQ data also showed the Year 5 scores as
being significantly higher than all other year levels in all subscales (with a high effect
size being recorded) with statistically significant difference in gender (i.e., female scores
being higher than the male scores) occurring only in the Cooperation and Control of
Classroom Behaviour subscale (with a low effect size).
The data relating to determining students’ self-reported learning attitudes and
behaviours found that students rated themselves as being reasonably responsible learners.
This claim is evidenced by the finding that all subscales mean scores were above 4.40
and that 38 of the 40 descriptive items had recorded a mean score of at least 4.10 (on the
6-point scale). As in the SURLQ, the Year 5 mean scores were consistently higher than
the other year level scores in all six subscales (again with high effect size scores). When
year level scores were combined with gender, the only statistically significant interaction
was found in the Initiative subscale. In this subscale the mean scores for the Year 9 males
132
were higher than those of the Year 9 females, which contrasted with the usual pattern of
females outscoring the males.
The data pertaining to the association between students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours
showed a moderate correlation between each of the corresponding subscales scores. The
differences in corresponding subscale mean scores also showed a consistent pattern
whereby students’ perceptions of themselves as responsible learners did not reach the
levels of their understandings of responsibility for learning (with high effect size scores).
The following chapter discusses these findings in relation to the existing theory
and highlights a number of related issues that has potential implications for education
classroom pedagogy.
133
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter begins with a discussion of the research findings that were presented
in the previous chapter with particular references being made to the appropriate areas
within the existing literature. These analyses have been arranged in a format that reflects
the order in which the research questions were presented in previous chapters. Thus, a
discussion of the findings from the two measures of students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning (i.e., the responses to the open-ended questionnaire, followed
by the Students’ Understanding of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire) are
presented first (RQ1), followed by a critique of the findings of the Students’ Self-reported
Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (RQ2) and subsequently, the findings
pertaining to the association between students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours (RQ3).
This discussion is followed by a consideration of the various important
implications that these findings may potentially have for educational practice and for
research in the future. This chapter concludes by restating the importance of considering
the genuine perspective of responsibility for learning.
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
In respect to the first research question (RQ1), this study incorporated two distinct
data collection instruments for determining how students understand the concept of
134
responsibility for learning (refer Chapter 3). The first of these involved an open-ended
question designed to elicit students’ descriptions of their understandings of what it means
to be a responsible learner, followed by a questionnaire that required them to record on a
six-point Likert-type scale, the degree to which they agreed with the descriptors provided.
Each of these sets of findings relating to RQ1 are discussed in turn.
Open-Ended Question Responses
Due to the flexibility inherent within this form of data collection (i.e., by catering
for students of varying levels of written language competency, and by not limiting the
number of responses that one individual could provide), it was not surprising that such an
extensive catalogue of descriptive statements was forthcoming. The finding that while the
sample group of respondents produced some 706 statements that were able to be
meaningfully analysed, only 13 replies were considered to be unusable (as noted in the
previous chapter), reinforces the utility of this type of questionnaire as a means of
gathering an extensive pool of both qualitative and quantitative data.
Thematic Categories
The conceptual analysis of these open-ended responses produced a catalogue of
attributes and an arrangement of thematic categories that was not too dissimilar to those
subscales incorporated within The Responsibility For Learning Inventory (refer
Appendix A). Although within each thematic category, the descriptive statements may
not have exactly replicated the original catalogue of attributes, it was apparent that these
135
original subscales had been reiterated, with the necessary addition of a further seventh
classification which was labelled “General or Non-specific Attributes”.
As would be expected, the various thematic categories involved did not gain equal
support among respondents. The frequency of both the individual descriptive items and
thematic categories (refer Appendix D) not only gave an indication as to which attributes
students most readily associated with the concept of being a responsible learner, but also
enabled comparisons to be made between students’ original open-ended statements and
their responses to the SURLQ. Before discussing these themes in detail, it is important to
highlight the category of responses that were deemed to be at variance with the
established subscale groupings, namely the category of “General or Non-specific
Descriptors”.
General or Non-Specific Descriptors
Although it was established that the concept of responsibility for learning could
be described in terms of six broad thematic categories, it was not altogether surprising to
find that when students were allowed the freedom to express their own thoughts on this
topic, a number of relatively vague and imprecise expressions were produced.
This additional category comprised the sorts of responses that were considered to
be either lacking in precision or were not conceptually compatible with any of the
original subscale categories. As can be determined from Appendix C, this category
incorporated a variety of personal attributes, including: “being mature”; “making good
decisions”; “taking life and work seriously”; “taking ownership”; “being responsible for
themselves and their work”; as well as having the personal qualities of being “confident”
136
and “independent”. In terms of learning and achievement, this category also frequently
incorporated notions of “doing well”, “being smart” or “good at learning”, and
“understanding or remembering”, while three respondents stated that being a responsible
learner did not necessarily mean being the smartest. The determination that these
descriptors were regarded as being incompatible with all other thematic categories shows
that this additional thematic category, although having a relatively low frequency of
responses, is characterised by its conceptual diversity. Although a number of these
attributes may be found within the literature, they were not considered to be conceptually
similar enough for the establishment of a distinct thematic category.
Of particular interest is the appearance in this grouping of various descriptors that,
by themselves, do not enlighten the reader in any way as to what precisely is involved in
having such qualities. Thus, the problem with this type of response is not that these terms
are necessarily inaccurate or inappropriate to any understanding of responsibility for
learning, but that they assume by their lack of explicitness that such terms are universally
understood. While the relative frequency of these imprecise and vague descriptors within
the open-ended responses generally reflects that of the existing literature [i.e., as noted
among the teacher-based perspectives offered by Keith, et al. (1999) and West (1994)],
their existence reinforces this need for clarification and consensus of important terms. As
noted in the Rationale (Chapter 1), this lack of clarification and consensus as to the
precise meaning of various themes and terms has concerned those researchers who have
asserted that the existence of such conceptual ambiguities is one of the most significant
factors restricting the enhancement of personal responsibility for learning in schools
(Bacon, 1991, 1993; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987: Warton, 1997).
137
This issue of vague terminology is further highlighted by the potential for
confusion that exists when schools use similarly imprecise and unclarified terms when
relating either their aims or the qualities that students have attained through their
education. In campaigning their “success” in the wider community, schools regularly
uphold attributes like “respectfulness”, “self-motivated”, “self-disciplined”, or even
achieving “quality learning outcomes” and “standards of excellence” in describing their
students. Such promotions, without offering some reasonable explanation (through
specific behavioural or attitudinal descriptors) of what is actually meant by these terms,
do little to guide teachers or students in measuring or working towards these lofty ideals.
The investigation of how school communities (including various stakeholder groups)
understand any of the above-mentioned qualities may prove useful in not only improving
communication between parties (including students’ progress reports) but also in
maintaining credibility for those who might use these terms injudiciously.
This line of reasoning reinforces one of the important issues prompting this study,
namely that in order to promote responsibility for learning in students (or to address
deficiencies in this area), it is essential to articulate precisely what this term means to
stakeholders (refer Rationale, Chapter 1). This shortcoming highlights the potential that
exists for future research, particularly when consideration is given to the use of an
interview-based methodology, therefore enabling more in-depth and precise responses to
be drawn out. Having the opportunity for the researcher to encourage participants to offer
examples or further explanations of their initial responses would enable those imprecise
statements to become more explicit.
138
The Dominant Categories of Responsibility For Learning Descriptors
The frequency tallies for the open-ended responses (refer Appendix D) showed
the extent to which the two highest scoring categories (i.e., Active Participation in
Learning Activities, and Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour) dominated
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning. The finding that students have
predominantly described responsibility for learning in terms relating to these two broad
themes, suggests that their understandings of this concept reflects two of the most
significant areas of focus concerning educators in classrooms today: namely, students’
engagement with, or application to, learning (Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Keith et al.,
1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997; West, 1994) and their general classroom behaviours
(Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994). Given the contemporary importance of
students’ application and behaviour, it is also plausible that these areas of focus represent
two of the more significant aspects of school experience that education authorities feature
when making claims as to the quality of education (and teacher) in line with the
perceived expectations of parents, students, and the wider community (i.e., including
having students working towards fulfilling their academic potentials in a supportive
learning environment where behaviour is effectively managed). Considering the emphasis
that students in this study have given to the dual themes of active participation in learning
and cooperating with both peers and teachers, it could be hypothesised that students have
been trained, or at least strongly influenced, by their schooling experiences to perform in
accordance with these dominant spheres of expectations.
Given the extent to which the two thematic categories of Active Participation in
Learning Activities, and Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour have
139
dominated students’ understandings (based on the data from the open-ended question),
they are considered important enough to further discuss them as separate themes.
Active participation in learning activities. The finding that this student sample,
above all else, saw a responsible learner as one who actively participates in all learning
activities, reinforces what researchers have previously emphasised, namely that being a
responsible learner entails the behavioural attributes associated with the commitment of
effort and concentration in actively engaging in learning (Bacon, 1993; Corno, 1992;
Keith et al., 1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Researchers
have also linked a high degree of active involvement in the learning process with many of
the established self-regulated learning strategies proposed by Zimmerman and Martinez-
Pons (1986) (e.g., Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Risemberg &
Zimmerman, 1992; Stoynoff, 1996).
As Bacon (1993) has emphasised, many of the themes associated with
responsibility for learning encompass various behavioural responses that relate to such a
learner actively participating in all aspects of the learning process. While this research
acknowledges the conceptual overlap between many of these themes, it is apparent that
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning were heavily influenced by two
specific concepts, firstly that learning is associated with work and secondly, that a
responsible student is one who responds appropriately to the learning and behaviour
requirements set by others (including, teachers, administrators and/or parents).
As presented in Appendix C, it was evident that when describing their
understandings of responsibility for learning, students regularly offered a variety of
responses that incorporated the specific term of “work” when referring to their learning
140
activities or tasks. This finding is not unexpected, given the prevalence of various terms
and statements that directly associate learning activities or tasks with work in the
literature (e.g., Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999; Lutz, 1997a;
Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Warton, 1997; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). It is also
hypothesised that the frequency of students’ understandings of responsibility for learning
being associated in some way with the concept of work may largely be influenced by
their regular exposure to all manner of expressions that incorporate this word by teachers
who are directing, supporting, or reinforcing students’ engagement with learning
activities.
The association between responsibility and work is also reinforced in the research
of both Warton and Goodnow (1991) and Goodnow and Warton (1992) who maintained
that children’s perceptions and understandings of responsibility (incorporating the
concepts of ownership and obligation) are developed through the allocation and follow-
through of “household jobs”. Wartons’ (1997) latter work which investigated students’
perceptions of their experience with homework (and having responsibility for its
completion) further supports this connection between responsibility and work.
Additionally, it is also likely that through the advent of various initiatives by secondary
schools to prepare students for the transition to the workplace (e.g., work experience
programs, instruction in the preparation of resumes, and the incorporation of vocational
competencies into learning programs) that students’ views of learning and responsibility
will be more strongly associated with work (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990,
1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999; Warton, 1997). These observations reinforce
Bacon’s (1993) finding that among the students he interviewed there was a widespread
141
belief that they were at school to learn, and in order for this to happen, they must do their
work.
This discussion of the predominant view of responsibility for learning being
associated with students’ active participation and engagement in learning activities (as
supported by the prevalence of work related terminology) reinforces the contention that
being a responsible learner means applying themselves to those tasks that are required by
the teacher. This perspective is reinforced not only by the prevalence of work related
terminology noted above, but also by the contention that when a learner applies him or
herself to learning tasks that such activities have usually been decided (i.e., desired or
required) by some higher authority and instigated (i.e., directed or facilitated) by the
teacher. This obvious focus on teacher direction, particularly with respect to set learning
activities is clearly evident within some of the literature pertaining to the two key areas of
responsibility for learning (e.g., Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al.,
1999; Warton, 1997; West, 1994) and self-regulated learning (e.g., Pintrich, 1995; Purdie
et al., 1996; Wolters, 1998; Zimmerman, 1989b, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,
1988, 1990).
As detailed in Chapter 2 (Review of Literature), the significance of this apparent
inconsistency in understandings of responsibility for learning between the importance of
the theme of individual autonomy and personal control of learning and the pervasiveness
of teacher direction noted above, has been vigorously highlighted by Bacon (1991, 1993).
As this researcher has contended, the importance placed on students keeping on task and
completing set learning activities (irrespective of the quality or standard achieved),
should be viewed more as a response to the prevailing demands of the teacher, rather than
142
a general goal internalised by the student. It is uncertain whether further investigation
into the viability of students having ownership for the consequences of their non-
participation in the learning opportunities offered to them would support Bacon’s (1991,
1993) assertion that when teachers take responsibility for students’ involvement in
learning then the students are not actually “being” responsible, but “held” responsible.
This accent on the teacher (and institutional requirements) is also reinforced by
the style of language evident in students’ open-ended responses in this category. Close
examination of the statements offered, showed a number of specific examples where the
expressions reflected the type of language that teachers would commonly employ when
either directing (i.e., controlling) or assessing students, including for example: “applies
themselves to their learning”, “willingly responds”, “takes initiative”, “displays
persistence”, “uses time effectively”, “is punctual”, and “pays attention” (refer Appendix
D). It is hypothesised that these types of statements would not be part of students’ usual
language patterns (although likely to be in their vocabulary), but that their use of these
phrases (including the term “responsibility”) has developed from their having been
regularly exposed to the typically directive or evaluative statements of their teachers [as
evident in the checklists that teachers used to appraise students’ levels of responsibility
for learning provided by Keith et al. (1999) and West (1994)].
This expected link between students’ understandings of responsibility for learning
(with respect to those types of statements detailed above) and their exposure to teachers’
specific language features has been put to use by the instigators of one documented
classroom intervention project that was designed to positively influence students’
responsibility for learning (West, 1994). This program endeavoured to influence students’
143
learning attitudes and behaviours by specifically focussing students’ attention to ideals
and concepts such as: behaviours as being a commitment to a personal choice; being
accountable (i.e., having ownership) for consequences; having a positive attitude to
learning and being self-motivated; making wise use of time and the taking of initiative
when attending to learning tasks.
Of particular interest to this discussion of the prevailing emphasis on the external
direction and management of learning by the teacher within students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning, is the finding that amongst the extensive range of open-ended
responses offered, there was one single descriptive statement that had a much higher
frequency than all others. This descriptor was that of “paying attention or listening to the
teacher”. It was concluded from this finding, that according to this sample, the single
most central characteristic of a responsible learner is the degree to which they give their
attention to the teacher. The relatively frequency of this single descriptor to the current
sample gives support to Bacon’s (1993) determination that this one attribute is significant
enough to warrant its consideration as a distinct thematic category.
This particular quality, although associated conceptually with active participation
in learning does not, as Bacon (1993) observed, necessarily give any real indication as to
the quality of this involvement. In other words, unless consideration is given to what
students do with the information they have received (i.e., their positive responses to task
or behavioural directions) they may be, as Bacon asserted, just “giving the impression of
listening” (p. 205). Due to the nature of the data collection process employed in the
current study, no provision has been made for determining whether this emphasis on
listening to what the teacher has to say is motivated by a desire to attain the information
144
or to follow the instructions being given, or out of a real, or forced, respect for the
speaker or what is being said. This need for awareness of the underlying reasons why
students may appear to apply themselves responsibly to their learning has been
previously noted by a number of researchers (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991,
1993; Bandura, 1986; Warton, 1997).
It is plausible that the attribute of listening and paying attention to the teacher
forms a pragmatic as well as a conceptual bridge between the two most dominant
thematic categories of Active Participation in Learning, and Cooperation and Control of
Classroom Behaviours. As noted in the Research Findings (Chapter 4), the latter category
yielded a total response frequency that was only marginally less than that of the first-
mentioned category.
Cooperation and control of classroom behaviour. As detailed in Appendix D, this
second most dominant category of descriptors showed that students associated being a
responsible learner with a variety of behaviours related to respecting, considering and not
disrupting or hindering others in their learning (including cooperating and having positive
relationships with both teachers and students). The statements offered by the respondents
in this study can be seen to correlate closely with those descriptors that Bacon (1993)
grouped under the heading of “Obey the Rules”. This cooperative component of
responsibility for learning, incorporating positive social relationships between classroom
members, also reinforces the concerns noted by a number of observers, that when
students are behaving irresponsibly, they are conducting themselves in such a way that
compromises these relationships (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Corno, 1992; Keith et al.,
1999; West, 1994; Younger & Warrington, 1999).
145
As these cooperative behaviours and standards of social conduct are thought to be
derived primarily from those expectations of the school and the teachers [as in the
inventories published by both Keith et al. (1999) and West (1994)], it is interesting to
speculate on the influence that teachers may have, in not only defining standards of
conduct, but also in shaping how students understand their responsibilities in the
classroom.
Given the attention to issues relating to students’ general behaviours (and its
management) in contemporary schools (Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; Queensland
Teachers’ Union. The Courier-Mail, 12 April, 2005; West, 1994), it would also be
worthwhile to investigate whether such a focus on behaviour and social standards would
be evident in learning environments where students have taken primary responsibility for
decisions relating to firstly their attendance (e.g., in post-compulsory education contexts)
and secondly, in some cases, the content, direction, and consequences of their learning
(refer the discussion of the example of democratic schooling presented in Chapter 2).
Additionally, as Bacon (1991, 1993) contended, it is also essential that understandings of
responsibility for learning consider whether students’ appropriate social actions (i.e.,
getting along with others), as well as their various learning-related behaviours (i.e.,
application to learning opportunities), have been motivated by the students’ internalised
standards of conduct or by external forces being exerted on them by teachers or school
administrators (i.e., behavioural reinforcements and/or sanctions).
From this perspective, it could be argued that the concept of responsibility for
learning should only involve learning related issues, while those matters concerning the
control of individuals’ cooperative and social behaviours be considered under the distinct
146
thematic category of Responsibility For Classroom Behaviour. It is interesting to
speculate as to whether future research will also highlight the significance of cooperative
behaviours to understandings of responsibility for learning, or whether Responsibility For
Classroom Behaviour should be investigated as a distinct construct. It is also surmised
that if theorists continue to recognise the theme of general classroom social behaviour as
an integral component of personal responsibility for learning, then this aspect will be one
of the key features distinguishing it from theories of self-regulated learning.
This discussion of the two most dominant thematic categories of descriptive
attributes offered by students can be summarised in one concise statement, namely that
students in the current sample viewed responsibility for learning primarily in terms of
doing the right thing or being a good student. As described above, this type of
behavioural compliance involves actively attending to classwork (i.e., learning tasks) and
behaving appropriately with respect to all other members of the classroom. As argued
above, these aspects of understanding of responsibility for learning are both based, to a
large degree, on the expectations and requirements of the teacher, suggesting that doing
the right thing could also be interpreted as doing what is required by the teacher. As
noted in the literature, teachers have clearly communicated their universal preference for
this type of compliant student (Bacon, 1991; Dearn, 1998; Keith et al., 1994; Warren,
1997; West, 1994).
These assertions clearly reflect what Bacon (1993) had previously proposed,
namely, that students understandings of responsibility for learning should be viewed
under a specific set of thematic categories (including: Do the Work; Obey the Rules; Pay
Attention; Learn or Study; Try or Make an Effort; and Responsibility as Something
147
Given or Taken), all of which clearly feature the teacher and their requirements. Taken
further, it can be deduced that, based on the current findings, students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning largely involve the teacher being in control of the learning
process, rather than the learner. Interestingly, these conclusions clearly contradict much
of the literature that has focussed definitions of responsibility for learning in terms of the
student being autonomous, self-directed and in control of their own learning (e.g.,
Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992; Greenberg, 1987;
Zimmerman, 1990) (refer Review of Literature, Chapter 2).
Less Frequently Stated Thematic Categories
As presented in Appendix C, students in the current sample have also
acknowledged to a somewhat lesser degree, that responsibility for learning involves a
number of other important themes that are worthy of discussion.
Orientation towards school and learning. As noted in the Research Findings
(Chapter 4), the frequency tallies for thematic categories of open-ended responses
indicated that students in this sample had a relatively moderate level of concurrence with
the view that a responsible learner would have a positive orientation towards school and
learning. As detailed in Appendix C, this category of attributes included a variety of
positive attitudes, including: having a willingness to learn, a desire to succeed and make
the most of educational opportunities, taking pride in their work, and aiming towards the
highest possible standards. Also, these attitudes would be manifest in a variety of
behaviours such as neatness, persistence or commitment to learning tasks, being punctual
to class, taking steps to catch up any work missed, and in not cheating.
148
The finding that this predominantly attitudinal-based category was of relatively
less importance to the current sample (when compared to the themes of Active
Participation and Cooperation) is possibly explained by the predominance of behavioural
perspectives evident in these more dominant categories. This tendency towards a
behavioural focus of responsibility for learning was also noted in the literature reviewed
in Chapter 2 (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Keith et al., 1999; Warren, 1997; West,
1994).
As emphasised by Anderson and Prawat (1983) and Bacon (1991), the attitudinal
components of responsibility for learning should be considered as integral to this
construct as are those behavioural indicators resulting from internally-held perspectives.
Self-regulated learning theorists have also maintained that such learners will display a
positive and active approach towards their learning (Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1994;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Wolters, 1998), including having various positive
motivational (Alderman, 1999; Bandura, 1986; Meece, 1994) and volitional
characteristics (Corno, 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman, 1995).
The finding that having a positive orientation towards school and/or learning was
of relatively lesser importance to the respondents in this survey suggests that students
find it easier to conceptualise responsible learners in terms of specific behaviours rather
than underlying attitudes. However, given the commonly held belief that learning
behaviours are directly related to various attitudinal and motivational factors (Alderman,
1999; Ames, 1992; Pittman & Boggiano, 1992; Stipeck, 1993), it is not unexpected that
observers such as teachers and researchers might assume from students’ lack of diligent
application to learning tasks (or from their inappropriate social behaviours), that such
149
learners hold some negative attitudes towards schooling. In a similar vein, Bacon (1993)
has concluded from his observations and interviews with Year 6 and 7 students, that
school is not perceived as a place of learning that is relevant to these students’ future
lives. Further research is warranted in determining the degree to which students value
various aspects of their schooling experience (including how and what they are learning)
as well as the internalised reasons they have for their involvement in classroom activities.
Individual autonomy and personal control of learning. The total response
frequencies (refer Table 4.1, Chapter 4) also showed that in relation to the themes of
Active Participation in Learning Activities, Cooperation and Control of Classroom
Behaviour, and Orientation Towards Schooling and Learning, the specific thematic
category of Autonomy and Control of Learning has attracted relatively limited interest to
the students surveyed. As detailed in Appendix D, this category included concepts such
as: “Acknowledging that the ownership (and initiative) for educational progress lies in
the hands of the individual”, including “Being personally accountable for the
consequences of actions” (i.e., both successes and failures); “Taking charge or control of
learning”, having “the ability to work or learn independently” (including “setting their
own goals”, being “self-motivated”, and “self-aware”); and “Having the belief that the
teacher should not force students to learn”.
As noted earlier, although concepts relating to Individual Autonomy and Personal
Control of Learning are clearly evident within students’ open-ended statements, the
frequency of such responses does not reflect the importance of these themes within the
literature (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Caffarella, 1983; Corno,
1992; Dearn, 1998; Greenberg, 1987; Moon et al., 1993; Warren, 1997). As will be
150
discussed later in the section dealing with the responses to the SURLQ, students also
gave noticeably less attention to this theme when the descriptive data were analysed.
It could be argued that such a limited appreciation of individual autonomy and
personal control is not unexpected, given the pervasiveness of external (i.e., teacher)
controls in the classroom (Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,
1990), the bureaucratic management of curriculum delivery and direction of school
operations (Dearn, 1998; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Loughran & Derry, 1997), and the
generally constrained level of challenge presented to the tradition of compulsory
schooling. Although recent recognition has been given to the potential academic and
personal benefits of allowing students real choice in various aspects of the learning
process in the classroom (e.g., Corno, 1992; Perry, 1998; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,
1990), the finding that students did not recognise this as an important aspect of their
understanding of responsibility could be interpreted as students not perceiving that they
have any real choice and control of their own learning, and are unlikely to, given this
bureaucratic administration of compulsory schooling.
As was detailed in The Review of Literature (Chapter 2), a number of researchers
have advocated that the development of greater student responsibility in the classroom is
contingent upon learners having real opportunities to exercise genuine control over
aspects of the learning process, including the content and form of their education (i.e.,
personal curriculums), individual goals and challenge levels, the allocation of time, and
the selection of resources and sources of social support (Anderson & Prawat, 1983;
Bacon , 1990, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992; Dearn, 1998; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran &
Derry, 1997).
151
Although discussions of autonomy and control of learning frequently involve
reference to students’ perceptions of that control (e.g., King, 1994; Perry, 1998; Ryan &
Grolnick, 1986; Schunk, 1992), it would be worthwhile to investigate the extent to which
students in the type of democratic school described in Chapter 2 perceive that they
genuinely have this freedom and control over their own learning.
Despite the evidence offered in support of the personal and academic benefits that
can be achieved from a democratic approach to schooling where students are free to
decide and pursue their own interests in a trusting and supportive learning environment
(refer Chapter 2), it remains to be seen as to whether teachers would be willing or able to
relinquish much of the control that they are accustomed to, in the pursuit of some
valuable, yet potentially indeterminate outcomes. This perceived resistance by teachers
(and school administrators and education authorities and most likely, parents) to students
having this level of control and therefore responsibility has been noted by a number of
researchers (Bacon, 1990, 1991; Dearn, 1998); Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Loughran &
Derry, 1997; Utley, 1997) as one of the more significant set of limitations working
against the development of responsibility for learning in the classroom (refer Chapter 2).
The finding that students have given relatively lesser importance to the theme of
individual autonomy and personal control of learning, not only parallels the
predominance of behavioural compliance with external requirements in students’
understandings of responsibility for learning (refer section above), it also contrasts with
the emphasis given to the former theme in the literature. As noted in Chapter 2, issues
relating to individuals acting autonomously and having personal control of their own
learning are key components to understanding both the concepts of responsibility for
152
learning (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992;
Greenberg, 1987; Zimmerman, 1990) and self-regulated learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997;
Pintrich, 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988,
1990).
Within this discussion of the broad thematic category of individual autonomy and
personal control of learning, it is worth highlighting the existence within students’ open-
ended responses of a number of key descriptors associated with this category. As noted in
Chapter 2, this theme of autonomy and control includes, the learner having choices and
making their own decisions, the acceptance of the consequences of such decisions and
actions, and the ability to learn independently. The finding that students in the current
sample did not give a great deal of attention to responsible learners having choice and
making personal decisions as a means of controlling their own learning which again, is
not reflected by the emphasis given to these themes in the literature (e.g., Bacon, 1991,
Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1986, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Moon et al., 1993; Pintrich, 1995;
Schunk, 2001; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997, 1998)
Given that students have described their understandings of responsible learners
predominantly in terms of complying with the learning (i.e., active participation) and
behavioural expectations of teachers and school administrators (i.e., cooperation and
control of behaviour), and that various observers have asserted that the opportunities for
individual choice and control are usually constrained by the pervasive tradition of
conferring upon the teacher (and directed by some centralised management and
curriculum authority) the primary role of directing and managing learning in the
classroom (Bacon, 1991; Dearn, 1998; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Loughran & Derry, 1997),
153
it is not unexpected that students have not naturally acknowledged this aspect of
responsibility for learning.
The finding that a considerable proportion of those statements relating to
autonomy and control of learning (i.e., approximately one third of responses tallied in this
group) relates to the recognition and acceptance of the consequences of their personal
choices (including mistakes or failures) reaffirms what the literature shows about this
important aspect of responsibility for learning (Bacon, 1991, 1993; Corno, 1992;
Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Lutz, 1997a, 1997b; Warton, 1997).
However, it remains to be seen whether further research or any critical appraisal of the
outcomes of democratic schools [such as the Sudbury Valley School described by Gray
and Chanoff (1986) and Greenberg (1987) in Chapter 2], where the students are given
total control over the scope and direction of their learning, will lead to a greater
acceptance of the view that true responsibility for learning means that the individual
learner must accept the full extent of the consequences of their choices [as advocated by
Greenberg (1987)], despite the apparent risks and costs associated with choices that may
be misinformed, or made without thought. This statement has implications for appraising
the sorts of flexible programming strategies that are thought to promote students’ control
in the classroom by offering opportunities for individual decision-making (Cafferella,
1983; Dearn, 1998; Loughran & Derry; 1997; Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994), typically
from a range of activities and contracts devised by the teacher, rather than from a
completely unrestricted scope of choices that would arise from students’ personal needs
or interests. Furthermore, it is also worth giving serious consideration to the proposition
that when a learner chooses not to do the right thing in the classroom (i.e., by not
154
applying themselves diligently to learning activities or by behaving inappropriately in the
classroom) and yet accepts the full consequences of these choices (i.e., by not making
excuses and/or blaming someone else if the consequences are not to their liking), then
they should still be viewed as being genuinely responsible for themselves and their
learning.
Despite researchers having emphasised independence as being one of the most
significant requirements for being effective and/or successful as learners (e.g., Kerka,
1994; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Wang & Peverly, 1986; Winne, 1995a; Zimmerman, 1990),
only a relatively small number of open-ended responses were recorded under this
category. It is concluded that, for various reasons, students in this sample have not readily
associated responsibility for learning with independence. As noted in Chapter 2, learning
independence was commonly associated with the themes of autonomy and control (e.g.,
Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992; Winne, 1995a; Zimmerman, 1989a), self-regulated
learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Paris & Newman, 1990; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman,
1989a) and responsibility for learning (Bacon, 1990; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Wang &
Peverly, 1986). This paucity of interest in this theme may reflect what has been
accentuated in the above discussion, namely that students’ classroom experiences and
their perceptions of those experiences (including those relating to both academic learning
and control of behaviour) may be significantly influenced by their interactions with
teachers.
Although learning independence has also been regularly advanced as a desirable
goal of education (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990), the finding
that students’ understandings did not embrace this attribute reinforces students’ apparent
155
dependence on teachers for the management of their learning, which may be a cause of
concern for some educators. Given the finding that students in this survey have most
readily described responsibility for learning in terms of compliance with standards of
application to learning and social behaviour established and reinforced by the teacher
(refer earlier sections on Autonomy and Control of Learning, and Cooperation and
Control of Behaviour), it is not too surprising that students of all year levels have rarely
considered that a responsible learner could also be an independent one. However, the few
responses made by students that a responsible learner is one who is able to “able to work,
learn and think for themselves” reinforces the literature that has associated responsibility
for learning with learning independence (e.g., Bacon, 1990, 1993; Boekaerts, 1997;
Corno, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1983; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989a;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986).
Initiative and management of learning resources. As discussed in Chapter 3, there
is naturally some degree of conceptual overlap between these thematic categories,
implying that the two least frequently mentioned thematic categories of open-ended
responses, namely Initiative and Management of Learning Resources could readily be
associated with Autonomy and Control of Learning (as well as Active Participation in
Learning Activities, and Orientation Towards School and Learning). The finding that
these final thematic categories were found to be of such relative insignificance to the
respondents, as evidenced by the low response frequencies (refer Appendix D), suggests
that while emphasised in the literature (see below), students in this study have either
incorporated these ideas in various statements within the other categories or have almost
discounted these themes altogether.
156
An analysis of the list of open-ended responses for these two thematic categories
(refer Appendix C), shows (as in the literature), that when learners direct and manage
their own learning (via various self-initiated behaviours), they make learning happen
themselves without needing any forms of external support and/or coercion (e.g.,
Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992; Wang & Peverly, 1986; Warton, 1997; Zimmerman,
1986), and in doing so, they use available learning resources (both material and human)
to their best advantage (e.g., Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Perry, 1998; Pintrich, 1995;
Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). As noted in the Review of
Literature (Chapter 2), this important association between initiative and utilising a variety
of learning resources is reinforced by help-seeking theorists who have established the
utility of this approach as an important problem-solving tactic integral to taking
responsibility for overcoming deficiencies in understanding (e.g., Grayson et al., 1998;
Karabenick & Knapp, 1988, 1991; Nelson-Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Newman, 1990; Ryan
& Hicks, 1997).
It is also proposed that this apparent disparity between the importance given to the
two thematic categories of Initiative, and Managing Learning Resources by respondents,
when compared with the literature, is explained by students having viewed a responsible
learner in terms of compliance with application to learning and behavioural standards
rather than personal control of their learning. It is possible that this apparent lack of
interest in the self-initiation of extra learning activities or revision tasks, and attending to
notes taken in class or for study purposes (for example), supports the observation made
by Bacon (1993), that students (in his study) seem to give greater consideration to those
assignments that are likely to count for assessment than to ordinary class work.
157
Other Noteworthy Issues
As noted above, when careful analysis is applied to the partitioning of the various
descriptive statements provided by the respondents to the open-ended questionnaire, it is
possible to identify a certain degree of conceptual overlap between many of the thematic
categories and descriptive statements. In conceding some amount of criticism for this, it
should be remarked that firstly, the potential for conceptual similarities to exist within
apparently distinct classifications was noted in the section dealing with the development
of the responsibility for learning subscales (refer Chapter 3) and secondly, that it is
almost inevitable that comparable difficulties will be uncovered when such a wide range
of open-ended responses items are drawn into a similar set of categories. However,
despite this limitation, it was felt that the original subscale headings (incorporated in The
Responsibility For Learning Inventory) have been substantiated (although it was
necessary to add the General or Non-Specific Attributes category).
In highlighting the effectiveness of the open-ended question as a valid means to
determine students’ original and authentic descriptions of what they believe it means to
be a responsible learner, it is worthwhile to summarise the above discussion by reviewing
the major issues that have become apparent throughout all categories, including: an
overwhelming dominance of the dual themes of active participation in learning and
cooperation with others; the strong focus on external direction; a preference for
behavioural descriptors rather than internalised attitudes and beliefs; and students’ use of
the language of responsibility, including their use of various non-specific descriptors.
158
Summary of Discussion of Open-Ended Responses
It is clear that the open-ended questionnaire has enabled the collection of a rich
and original source of data pertaining to Research Question 1 (i.e., determining students’
understandings of the concept of responsibility for learning). The most significant feature
of this data is the finding that the current sample have defined and described responsible
learners in terms of their compliance with the learning and social behaviour expectations
that are established, communicated, and maintained predominately by the teacher. It was
concluded that this dominant theme of classroom compliance could be summarised by the
statement that students in this study predominantly saw responsibility for learning as
equating to doing the right thing and/or being a good learner. As discussed above, it was
not surprising that this perspective has reflected that which was advocated in the reports
by Keith et al. (1999) and West (1994) both of which focussed on a set of descriptive
attributes put forward by educators. It was concluded that this external, compliance-based
perspective reinforces the potential influence that teachers may have on students’
understandings of responsibility for learning.
In conjunction with this finding, it was also significant to find that students gave
noticeably less emphasis to the theme of responsible learners being autonomous and in
control of their own learning (including making personal decisions and consequently,
being accountable for the consequences of their choices) which lies in direct contrast to
the prevalence of this theme within the literature. It can therefore be concluded that while
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning (as described by the respondents in
the current research) have focussed on behavioural compliance rather than the dual
themes of individual autonomy and personal control, and an internalised, positive,
159
attitudinal orientation towards learning, the academic literature actually shows a directly
opposing emphasis.
However, as will be discussed in the Implications section (later in this chapter), it
is argued that despite this focus in the literature on the student being autonomous and
having considerable personal control over their own learning, further work is required to
determine more precisely how much control that key theorists and educators believe the
learner should have (in conjunction with specifying the particular aspects of the learning
process that should left in the hands of the learner), and to what extent they believe that
students should be accountable for the possible consequences of this control.
As detailed in the previous chapter, a second set of data pertaining to the first
research question (i.e., students’ understandings of responsibility for learning) was
collected by a separate questionnaire. The findings of this questionnaire are discussed in
the next section.
Responses to the SURLQ
In addition to the data produced by students’ responses to the open-ended
question, the question of determining students’ understandings of what it means to a
responsible learner was also investigated by administering a 40-item, Likert-type
response questionnaire (i.e., the SURLQ, refer Appendix B). As presented in the Data
Analysis Procedures (refer Chapter 3), the relative importance of mean scores given to
these items and hence, the six subscales was statistically determined. This form of data
collection, in being quantitative, has the potential to produce a divergent response pattern
160
to the open-ended format, due to the fact that the SURLQ presented respondents with
various themes and descriptors that may have not ordinarily come to mind when students
were describing responsible learners.
The Subscales
When the subscale mean scores were compared and ranked in order of frequency,
it was noted that although there was a high level of general support for all six subscales,
this set of data yielded a noticeably different pattern to that of the open-ended response
data. These results are discussed firstly in terms of the subscale data (including a brief
discussion of the individual descriptive attributes), followed by the statistically
significant differences in the subscale data with respect to the independent variables of
year level and gender.
Orientation towards school and learning. It was interesting to observe that in
contrast to the open-ended response data, students gave the subscale of Orientation
Towards School and Learning the highest mean score, which incorporated the attitudinal
attributes of “Believing that achieving at school is important for future success.” (i.e., the
highest scoring single item), “Wanting to learn as much as possible.”, “Having a
preference for challenge.”, and “Trying to do their best work”. The finding that, in this
questionnaire, students preference for this subscale (which included both behavioural and
attitudinal attributes) reinforces the view that internalised motivations and belief systems
must play an important role in activating and directing learning behaviours (e.g.,
Alderman, 1999; Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Bandura, 1986; Pittman &
Boggiano, 1992; Wolters, 1998). This theme of having a positive orientation towards
161
school and learning is also important because it strongly supports the literature that has
associated responsibility for learning with having internalised purposes for doing class
work and gaining knowledge (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1993; Bacon, 1991; Bandura,
1986; Corno, 1992; Loughran & Derry, 1997; Warren, 1997; Warton, 1997), including
students’ perceiving what is being learnt to be of interest and/or relevance to them (Bacon,
1993; West, 1994) and that school is valued as a place of worthwhile learning (Bacon,
1993).
Thus, as noted in the discussion of the open-ended responses, it is evident that
students have shown a noticeable awareness of the importance of the attitudinal
component of responsibility for learning. It is probable that this enhanced focus on
attitudinal attributes has only become evident in the agreement checklist where students
were required to respond to those attributes that were suggested to them, rather than
having to generate them independently. The finding that in the open-ended questionnaire,
respondents presented a wider range of behavioural descriptors, in comparison to the
attitudinal attributes offered supports this contention.
As noted in the Research Findings (Chapter 4), it was also evident that students in
this sample have shown a high degree of overall agreement with all the descriptive items
and consequently, each of the six subscales. This finding may be explained either by
students having a relatively clear understanding of the concept of responsibility for
learning or that they may, in effect, have tended towards an overall concurrence with the
items presented. This latter hypothesis could possibly be due to an over supply of items
that were not too dissimilar and an absence of competing themes which would have
forced respondents to consider each one distinctly. The finding that there was a not a
162
large difference between the mean scores for each subscale illustrates the position that
students in this sample were more likely to support a descriptive statement once it was
presented to them, rather than having to generate the thoughts themselves, as in the open-
ended questionnaire. The fact that the pattern of subscale differentiation evident in both
data collection approaches (i.e., the open-ended questionnaire and the SURLQ) is quite
similar (i.e., focussing on active participation in learning activities and classroom
behaviour) supports this contention.
Individual autonomy and personal control of learning. One of the most significant
outcomes of this questionnaire relates to the finding that of the six responsibility for
learning subscales, survey respondents considered Autonomy and Control of Learning to
be the least applicable to responsible learners. While limited recognition of this theme is
consistent with the open-ended response data, it directly contrasts with the dominance of
this theme within the literature (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1991, 1993;
Caffarella, 1983; Corno, 1992; Dearn, 1998; Moon, et al., 1993; Warren, 1997). As in the
issue of acknowledging attitudinal components of responsibility for learning, it is argued
that students are more likely to appreciate the importance of being autonomous and
having personal control of aspects of the learning process once it has been suggested to
them. This assertion is supported by the finding that although this subscale had the lowest
mean score of the six subscales, there was not the noticeable disparity between subscale
mean scores in the SURLQ data, as there was among the frequencies of the various
thematic categories in the open-ended response data.
The importance of the theme of autonomy and personal control of learning is
reflected in this subscale having the largest number of descriptive items (refer Appendix
163
A). As was detailed in Research Methodology (Chapter 3), these items have all been
drawn from the literature that has associated responsibility for learning with the following
themes: individual autonomy (e.g., Bacon, 1993; Corno, 1992, Ryan & Grolnick, 1986);
self-control and self-regulation of learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk
& Zimmerman, 1998); the absence of teacher controls (e.g., Pintrich, 1995; Purdie &
Hattie, 1996; Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992); learning independence (e.g., Schunk,
1995; Zimmerman, 1989a); personal decision-making (Bacon, 1990, 1991; Corno, 1992;
Perry, 1998); as well as ownership and the acceptance of consequences (Bacon, 1991;
Corno, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Lutz, 1997b). As discussed earlier, this moderated
awareness by respondents of students’ having genuine choice and therefore, real control
of their own learning may have developed as a consequence of the pervasive levels of
administrative and teacher controls in schools and classrooms (Boekaerts, 1997; Corno,
1992; Perry, 1998; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
It may be possible that as more research is carried out and a greater understanding
and acceptance of the literature that advocates for learners to make their own decisions,
to have control, and to take ownership and be accountable for the full extent of the
consequences of this freedom (e.g., Bacon, 1991, 1993; Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992;
Greenberg, 1987; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001), that the balance of
attention may swing away from defining responsibility for learning predominantly in
terms of those behaviours that are required by some source external to the individual. It
remains to be seen whether this contention can be applied to how teachers view their
responsibilities in the classroom and the extent to which they will be willing (or allowed),
to confer more real responsibility for learning to individual students. Future research will
164
have an important role to play in determining the extent to which personal control and
individual responsibilities may fluctuate within classrooms, how teachers and students
perceive this control, and whether, in environments offering greater student autonomy, it
would follow that students and teachers would give greater credence to this aspect of
responsibility for learning.
The Descriptive Attributes
Following on from the earlier discussion highlighting the portrayal of responsible
learners as being those who would have a positive attitudinal orientation towards school
and learning, it is worth noting that the single descriptive attribute that ranked above all
others was that of “Believing that school achievement is important to future success.”
(refer Appendix D). This belief represents an important attitude that could explain many,
if not all, of the remaining attributes (refer Appendix A). Similarly, this dominant theme
is also reflected in four of the six highest scoring attributes, which reinforces the
importance of an attitudinal perspective to describing students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning that was evident within the literature (e.g., Bacon, 1991, 1993;
Loughran & Derry, 1997; Moon et al., 1993; Warren, 1997; West, 1994).
As detailed in the Research Designs and Methods (Chapter 3), it was expected
that the inclusion of such a universal type of thematic category (incorporating a range of
attitudinal attributes that represent a general orientation towards school and/or learning),
would in all likelihood be found to dominate students’ understandings of responsibility
for learning. This attitudinal focus contrasts somewhat with the greater behavioural
emphasis reported in the analysis of the open-ended response data. Significantly, the
165
focus on teachers discussed earlier is evident here, not only in the third ranked descriptor
of “Following directions”, but also in the sixth ranked item of “Listening carefully to the
teacher”. While the importance of these teacher-focussed behavioural attributes is
reflected in the literature (Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994), the latter attribute
has surprisingly not attracted the level of attention that it did when students responded to
the open-ended questionnaire.
Year Level and Gender Differences
As reported in the previous chapter (Research Findings), analysis of the data
pertaining to the independent variables of year level and gender collected from the
SURLQ found a number of statistically significant differences that should be noted.
These sets of differences are discussed in turn below.
Year level differences. Statistical analysis of the six subscales showed a consistent
pattern of year level differences, whereby Year 5 students recorded significantly higher
mean scores than virtually all the other year level groups. It was found that other than the
two subscales of Orientation Towards School and Learning, and Active Participation in
Learning Activities, the youngest year level group was found to significantly score higher
than all other year levels (refer Chapter 4 and/or Appendix F). The consistency of this
pattern suggests the possibility that this year level group have responded to virtually all
the items in the SURLQ in such a way as to complete the questionnaire positively, rather
than by giving them thorough contemplation (based on a genuine comprehension of the
meaning of each of the attributes described in the questionnaire). As will be discussed in
the final chapter (refer Limitations of Current Research), some uncertainty was evident
166
about the comprehension levels of the Year 5 group. The finding that in some
comparisons, the effect sizes were significantly large and that in a number of class groups,
the younger students regularly asked for support (in the form of further explanations)
supports this constrained level of confidence in their abilities to fully understand what
each item in the SURLQ was asking of them.
In addition to declaring some degree of concern over the reliability and validity of
the Year 5 data, it is worth discussing the Year 11 subscales scores. In each of the six
subscales, a consistent pattern whereby the oldest year level cohort produced the second
highest level of agreement with the attributes was evident, suggesting a possible
reinforcement of the maturity hypothesis proposed by Warton and Goodnow (1991) and
Younger and Warrington (1999). The finding that this oldest year level group produced
subscale mean scores that exceeded those of the Year 7s and 9s (although only reaching
statistical significance when compared to the Year 9 group in the Resource Management
subscale), suggests that the responses of the Year 11 group could have been influenced
by a change in their motivations and commitment to schooling that may be brought about
by the removal of the constraints of compulsory schooling, rather than the developmental
growth influence identified in the literature (Corno, 1992; Goodnow & Warton, 1992;
Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991).
This deliberation about maturity may also help to explain the consistent trend
within all subscales for Year 9 students to have recorded the lowest subscale mean scores.
It should be noted that some degree of reluctance to oblige (possibly due to feelings of
irrelevance or apathy, or a general aversion towards writing activities) was detected in
varying levels among the three classes surveyed. In contrast, Year 7 students overall,
167
were still relatively eager to complete the survey and yielded higher subscale mean scores
than their Year 9 counterparts, although the difference was not considered statistically
significant.
Gender differences. As noted in the Research Findings (Chapter 4), females
across all subscales have consistently produced higher mean scores than their male
counterparts, while only the largest difference (in the Cooperation and Control of
Classroom Behaviour subscale) was found to be statistically significant in the present
sample. This result reflects the conclusions of a number of researchers that the
development of an understanding of responsibility (with respect to academic and non-
academic contexts) is not dependent upon gender (Bacon, 1993; Warton, 1997; Warton &
Goodnow, 1991).
However, this finding of a statistically significant gender difference in the
Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour subscale suggests that the girls’
understandings of responsibility for learning (across all year levels surveyed) may be
more focussed on social attributes, such as getting along with teachers and classmates,
following directions, and complying with the social and behavioural standards of the
classroom. Such a conclusion reinforces the findings of Younger and Warrington (1999)
that female students tend to place a greater emphasis on interpersonal relationships in the
classroom. Thus, opportunities exist for future researchers to further explore the relative
importance that students of differing gender (in combination with age) place on social
relationships in respect to their various aspects of their classroom experiences (including
for example, students’ perceptions of the quality of interpersonal relationships in the
classrooms and their application to learning).
168
Summary of Discussion of SURLQ Responses
This section has discussed the findings of students’ responses to the Students’
Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire. It was noted that unlike
the open-ended responses where students favoured a predominantly behavioural
perspective, based on compliance with teachers’ expectations in the classroom, students’
responses to the SURLQ showed an acknowledgment of the importance of an attitudinal
perspective as reflected in the literature. The finding that there was a generally high
concurrence with all six subscales (and all of the descriptive items), suggested that
students were more likely to support a feature when they were exposed to it (as in the
SURLQ) rather than having to independently generate the ideas themselves. This
observation lead to the conclusion that the open-ended question was a most valuable
means of determining students’ unprompted and original understandings of responsibility
for learning.
The discussion of the subscale scores in relation to differences in the independent
variables led to a number of conclusions, including: concerns with the Year 5 scores (due
to doubts over their comprehension levels); the potential for maturity levels to play a part
in students’ understandings (as suggested in certain sectors of the literature); and the role
of gender in explaining girls’ greater interest in social relationships in the classroom. It
was also concluded that further research was needed to explore further the relationship
and/or influence of the independent variables (i.e., year level and gender) on students’
understandings of responsibility for learning.
As outlined in Chapters 1 and 3, in addition to investigating questions relating to
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning, this study also collected data
169
pertaining to the extent to which students perceived themselves as having the designated
attributes of responsible learners. The main features of the findings from this data
collection process and how they related to the existing literature are discussed below.
Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
With respect to the second research question (RQ2) the Students’ Self-Reported
Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (SRLABQ) relied on students’ self-
appraisals of their levels of responsibility for learning, rather than some form of external
judgment (e.g., assessment by the teacher or an independent observer) (refer Data
Sources, Chapter 3). The same statistical analysis procedures as applied to the SURLQ
data were also applied to the data collected from this second questionnaire, which
incorporated a similar, but reworded inventory of descriptive items within the same six
subscale groupings. The main features of the findings with respect to the subscale data
and the differences in the independent variables are discussed below.
The Subscales
As presented in the previous chapter (Chapter 4), the statistical analysis of the
data collected by the SRLABQ showed that students in this particular sample group have
rated themselves consistently high in all subscales and that no one particular subscale was
dominant. These self-appraisements can be summarised by stating that students have
described themselves in the following terms: having a positive orientation towards their
academic learning; being actively involved in the majority of learning activities
170
(including showing both initiative and a constructive use of available learning resources);
having some degree of control over this involvement; as well as displaying a variety of
cooperative behaviours in the classroom. Thus, it was concluded that, in a general sense,
students saw themselves as being, to a reasonably high degree, responsible learners at
school. It is important to note that this finding lies in direct contrast with the claims in the
literature of the increasing levels of students’ apparent lack of responsibility in the
classroom (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993; Corno, 1992; Keith et al.,
1999; Loughran & Derry, 1997; West, 1994; Younger & Warrington, 1999).
It was also noted that students overall, rated themselves most highly in the areas
of Orientation Towards School and Learning, and Cooperation and Control of Classroom
Behaviour, which is taken to mean that, above all else, they saw themselves as holding a
range of positive attitudes towards their schooling and generally behaving appropriately
in the classroom. This finding also contrasts with the literature that has identified
problems associated with the poor attitudes of students towards school and what they are
learning, and the apparent decline in the quality of students’ cooperative social
behaviours (Bacon, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994). It was also found that students
felt that, to a reasonable degree, they were in charge of their own learning and were able
to make their own decisions in the classroom (i.e., Autonomy and Control of Learning).
This theme is highlighted because it contradicts the assertion made earlier, that due to
various institutional requirements students are usually limited in the amount of personal
control that they are able to exert (Bacon, 1990, 1991; Corno, 1992; Gray & Chanoff,
1986; Utley, 1997).
171
These contradictions with the literature highlight the potential that exists for
students’ self-appraisals of responsibility for learning to vary from those of various
external observers. Future researchers may elect to utilise alternative measures of
students’ levels of responsibility for learning, such as the judgments or observations by
teachers (as employed by Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994; and Zimmerman and Martinez-
Pons, 1988) or the assessments of an independent observer (as did Bacon, 1993) as a
means of substantiating the current findings. As Bacon (1993) had determined, it was
important to independently validate the self-assessments made by those students
interviewed regarding their attitudes to learning and classroom behaviours. It is
interesting to contrast Bacon’s unfavourable interpretations of students’ classroom
actions and their interview responses (e.g., students not perceiving school as a place of
learning or having any relevance to the rest of their lives, but as a place for socialising
with friends; feeling that they had very little control over what they were doing; and
doing the bare minimum to satisfy the demands of teachers) with the relatively high self-
appraisements of the current sample. This disparity between Bacon’s (1993) conclusions
and the self-assessments of participants in this study is also evident in the finding that
these students considered themselves (above all other attributes) as having the belief that
school is valued as providing important opportunities for their future success.
The validation of students’ self-reports is considered an important focus for future
research, not only in attempting to overcome the potential deficiencies in reliability
inherent within this form of data collection [as acknowledged by Assor and Connell
(1992)], but also to respond to the disturbing claims made by a number of researchers,
that students (from a behavioural perspective) are not taking responsibility for their own
172
learning (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1990, 1993; Keith et al., 1999; Loughran &
Derry, 1997). The potential for students to over-inflate their estimations of their learning
attributes, in relation to say, how their teachers might appraise these qualities, has been
noted in the limitations section (refer Chapter 6). This point is also made on the basis that
if respondents perceived the attributes in question as being those of a “good” learner (as
proposed earlier), then they are more likely to confirm in their own minds (as well as to
the researcher, despite confirmations of confidentiality) their perceptions of having a
positive approach to learning.
It is important, however, to emphasise that individuals’ self-assessments do not
describe necessarily, students’ levels of responsibility, but provide a picture of how
students have perceived themselves in their own eyes. Thus, it would be a worthwhile
project for future researchers to investigate the degree to which students’ self-perceptions
of their levels of responsibility for learning correlate with the various external
assessments of other observers (e.g., teachers or researchers).
These apparent contradictions in judgements of students’ levels of responsibility
for learning (between the self-reports of the students in this study and the viewpoints
given in the literature) have significant implications for influencing any efforts that
educators might make to enhance this quality in students in the future. It is argued that
teachers will need to actively work towards overcoming this disparity in perceptions of
levels of responsibility for learning (by having students adopt an more realistic appraisal
of themselves as learners that is more closely aligned with those of external observers)
before expecting any great improvements in this area. These issues along with a number
of other implications of this study’s findings will be discussed later in this chapter.
173
Year Level and Gender Differences
As presented in the previous chapter (Research Findings), analysis of the data
pertaining to the independent variables of year level, gender, and achievement level
collected from the SRLABQ found a number of statistically significant differences and
interactions that should be discussed. These sets of differences and interactions are
discussed in turn below.
Year Level Differences
The analysis of the year level data showed that, in contrast to the consistent year
level pattern evident in the SURLQ data (in which the Year 5 scores were highest
followed, in rank order by the Year 11, Year 7, Year 9 scores), no such pattern was
evident, other than the finding that Year 5 scores were significantly greater than all other
year level scores (and sometimes yielding very high effect size scores; refer Research
Findings, Chapter 4).
This finding supports the assertion made earlier (refer earlier discussion of the
SURLQ data) that the students of the youngest year level may have been hampered by
either reduced comprehension levels (remembering that in this part of the survey
respondents were presented with the items for the first time), or by a desire to present a
self-portrait consistent with the concept of being a “good” learner. It is also hypothesised
that this finding that the Year 5s consistently scored higher than the other year levels in
all subscales (with the highest scores being 5.23 and 5.19 in the respective subscales of
Orientation Towards School and Learning, and Cooperation and Control of Behaviour),
174
suggests that these areas may have been a major classroom focus for this year level and
have probably shaped their understandings of responsibility for learning. The finding that
all year levels consistently (i.e., in all subscales) recorded a lower subscale mean score
for their own responsibility for learning attributes than for their understandings of this
concept, suggests that this desire to present a positive image of themselves was no more
prevalent for one particular age group than for any other.
As noted in the discussion of the findings of the SURLQ, Year 9 students
regularly (in five of the six subscales) reported themselves as having the lowest level of
concurrence with the attributes presented. This finding reinforces the earlier concerns
regarding the possible reduced level of commitment that this year level may have for
giving genuine consideration to the questionnaire items (i.e., students’ self-assessments
of their learning attitudes and behaviours). However, it is also possible that due to this
diminished level of general classroom responsibility (as reported by the students
themselves), some degree of accuracy in this portrayal can be assumed.
It was also surprising to note that the Year 11 scores were not always higher than
the remaining year levels scores (i.e., Year 7 and Year 9) and actually reported
themselves as having the lowest level of active participation in learning activities. This
finding is possibly explained by their involvement in post-compulsory schooling (in
conjunction with an expected greater level of maturity) contributing to their having
higher expectations and consequently, a more realistic evaluation of themselves as
learners (e.g., Assor & Connell, 1992; Younger & Warrington, 1999). There is a clear
case for further research to be conducted that explores the possible environmental (i.e.,
classroom and home) or developmental factors [as noted by Corno (1992) and Warton
175
(1997)] that might potentially influence students’ self-appraisals of their responsible
and/or self-regulated learning attributes.
Gender Differences
The finding that female students overall reported themselves as having higher
levels of responsible learning attributes than the males in all subscale areas (although the
difference at no time reached a significant level) supports the assertion that no major
gender difference was evident. This finding is consistent with the non-significant gender
pattern found in the students’ understandings data, reinforcing that, as suggested by the
literature (Bacon, 1993; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991), that no noticeable
gender effect should be expected.
Interactions Between Independent Variables
The statistical analyses of year level and gender interactions found only one area
of statistically significant inter-variable effect. As reported in the Research Findings
(Chapter 4), Year 9 males were found to outscore their female classmates by a
statistically significant amount only in the Initiative subscale. This contrasts with the
usual pattern whereby females scored higher in all year levels, across all subscales. This
finding indicated that in this age group, girls have reported that they are less able than
boys, to direct themselves to move on to the next task, find and correct their mistakes,
and set their own revision or extension tasks. It appears that this subgroup was more
dependent on teacher direction, possibly due to having developed a desire to comply with
classroom leadership or a concern over doing the wrong thing, as suggested in the earlier
176
discussion of classroom issues relating specifically to boys. In the absence of evidence
supporting this assertion, it is concluded that further research is required to determine
whether this effect could be associated with various classroom experiences and whether
similar results would be replicated in other year level and gender samples.
The Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
and Their Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours
As introduced in Chapter 1, the third research question of determining the
association between students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-
reported learning attributes was also investigated in this study. This association was
analysed in two distinct ways including firstly, the correlations between the mean scores
of the corresponding subscales, and secondly, the differences between corresponding
subscales mean scores for each of these dependent variables. Each of these measures are
discussed in turn.
Correlations Between Corresponding Subscale Mean Scores
As presented in the Research Findings (Chapter 4), correlation analysis of each
corresponding sets of subscales has indicated that a reasonably sound relationship exists
between students’ understandings of the concept of responsibility for learning and their
self-appraisals of their own learning attitudes and behaviours in the classroom. As noted
in the corresponding section in the previous chapter, this correlation was highest in the
subscale of Orientation Towards School and Learning, which reinforces the importance
177
given in the literature to the role of internalised attitudes and beliefs in explaining and
possibly predicting, students’ learning related behaviours (e.g., Anderson & Prawat,
1983; Bacon, 1991; Pintrich, 1995; Ryan & Connell, 1989; Warton, 1997). This finding
can be interpreted to mean that, in general terms, those students who have viewed the
concept of a responsible learner most consistently with the model presented, are more
likely to see themselves in a similar way.
It is uncertain whether this understanding of responsibility for learning was
influenced by the students having the various attributes of responsible learners, or
whether such attitudes and behaviours contributed in some way to the students viewing
responsible learners in the same terms. However, in the future the question might be
asked as to whether students who have been judged to be highly responsible in the
classroom would reliably agree with the existing model. Although it remains to be seen
as to whether this association would be maintained if another form of assessment of
students’ levels of responsibility for learning was employed (e.g., teacher observation),
this conclusion appears to be a logical one.
Differences in Corresponding Subscale Mean Scores
When differences in the subscale mean scores for each subscale were considered,
it was noted that while students appraised themselves positively as responsible learners,
these self-assessments did not reach the high levels that students expected of such
learners. Having established that students across a wide range of year levels have
generally agreed with the established model of responsibility for learning (as shown in
178
the Research Findings, Chapter 4), the finding that students have acknowledged that they
have deficiencies in various areas suggests some degree of authenticity in their self-
assessments as well as the existence of grounds for their improvement in this area.
As Bacon (1993) noted, inconsistencies are likely to exist in the way in which
students believe that they would show a positive orientation towards school and learning
and how their actual behaviours and achievement results might be appraised and
interpreted by external observers. As this researcher contended, schools may unwittingly
be reinforcing in students the idea that doing what is required by teachers (both in terms
of reaching minimum standards in academic areas as well as in classroom behaviours) is
all that is necessary to “avoid trouble” and to be responsible.
Summary of Discussion
In the above section the major findings of the research have been discussed with
particular attention being given to how these findings related to the existing literature.
This section discussed firstly, how students have described their understandings of the
concept of personal responsibility for learning (comprising their open-ended responses
and the data collected from the SURLQ), followed by an analysis of the extent to which
students have reported themselves to hold the attitudes and display the behaviours
belonging to responsible learners. Finally, the relationship between students’
understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-reported responsible learning
attributes was discussed.
179
Considering the research questions in their established order, students in this
research sample provided extensive data that both reflected and contrasted differing
perspectives within the existing literature. With respect to determining students’
understandings of responsibility for learning this study found that students principally
described responsible learners in terms of behavioural compliance with established
standards (i.e., actively participating in learning activities and cooperating with others in
the classroom), which reflected the emphasis given to these aspects by teachers within
certain segments of the literature. It was also evident that students did not give as much
attention to attitudinal components (unless it was suggested to them, as in the SURLQ),
which contrasted with the emphasis given to this perspective in the literature. Students
were also less likely to acknowledge that responsible learners were those who were
autonomous and in control of their own learning although the literature greatly features
characteristics related to this theme.
The data that showed students in this sample to have considered themselves to be
reasonably responsible learners was also found to contrast the literature that expressed a
concern over students’ lack of responsibility in the classroom. It was concluded that
although these positive self-appraisements were evident in all six of the responsibility for
learning subscales, it is possible that some form of external assessment of students’ levels
of responsibility may not echo these self-reports. The finding that the Year 5 scores were
significantly higher than all the other year levels across all subscales in these two
measures (i.e., students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and their
perceptions of themselves as responsible learners) was a source of concern as to the level
of reliability of the data collected from this age group. It was not surprising that there was
180
a reasonable level of correlation between corresponding subscales in these two measures
suggesting that students are likely to see themselves as responsible learners in a way that
reflects their understandings of the concept.
As previously noted in the Review of Literature (Chapter 2), many of the issues
raised in the above discussion have significant implications for all levels of educational
practice. These implications are discussed in the next section.
Implications For Educational Practice
Given that the concept of personal responsibility for learning has been regularly
highlighted within the literature relating to individual autonomy and personal control of
learning (i.e., self-directed learning, self-regulated learning, and learning independence)
(e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Biemiller & Michenbaum, 1992; Boekaerts, 1997;
Corno, 1992; Pintrich, 1995; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001), it is inevitable that this
concept has significant implications for the way in which students participate in learning
and schooling, the perceived roles and responsibilities of all education stakeholders, and
how schools and classrooms operate.
This section discusses a number of key issues, including the implications of how
students have described their understandings of the concept of personal responsibility for
learning as well as the extent to which they have reported themselves to hold the
attributes of responsible learners in the classroom. Consequently, a number of
recommendations are offered with the aim of having educators develop a more complete
understanding of personal responsibility for learning, enabling them to promote this
181
quality in all students. This section concludes by restating the principal features of a
genuine perspective of responsibility for learning in which students have full control and
real accountability for their own learning, followed by a brief discussion of the role that
research plays influencing the fundamental shift in philosophy that is necessary to bring
about the changes in schools and classrooms that are advocated.
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
In accordance with those researchers who have argued that any enhancement in
students’ responsibility for learning in the classroom must take into account their
understandings of the concept (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1993; Warton, 1997),
this study found that school students across a wide range of ages expressed their views in
terms of the behavioural themes of active participation in learning activities and positive
interpersonal relationships with teachers (and classmates). This perspective, which also
emphasised the singular characteristic of “listening and/or paying attention to the
teacher”, conspicuously lacked any great support for the one theme that was most
significant to the literature in this field; namely, that of the individual autonomy and
personal control of learning.
Critical Themes Associated with Responsibility For Learning
Although individual autonomy and personal control of learning (incorporating
choice, decision-making, self-regulation, personal goal-setting, self-motivation and
independence) in conjunction with having ownership of, and being accountable for, the
182
consequences of such choices has been emphasised in the literature as an important
contributor to academic achievement and personal development (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997;
Deci & Ryan, 1992; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Paris & Newman, 1990; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997; Stoynoff, 1996), this study showed students’ relative lack of interest
in these themes.
As noted in the Review of Literature (Chapter 2), the themes of personal control
of learning and ownership (and accountability) of consequences did not dominate
teachers’ views of responsibility for learning, as they, like students, preferred to
emphasise the behavioural attributes of applying oneself diligently to learning tasks and
behaving appropriately in the classroom. The finding that respondents in both
questionnaires gave relatively little emphasis to these themes suggests that considerable
work needs to be done before teachers and students will begin to accept these important
components of personal responsibility for learning.
The responses from the two questionnaires showed a relatively limited
appreciation or a general disregard for the key component of having, or taking, ownership
of any negative consequences resulting from individual decisions (refer Appendix D,
item 13, and Appendix E, item 28). Within the academic context, it is thought that such
outcomes might take a variety of forms, ranging from measures of high success and
achievement through to unprecedented failure, which may include poor results, having to
repeat some form of assessment or course of instruction, being excluded from an
educational institution, having wasted significant amounts of time, or possibly, having
outlaid course costs with little achieved in return (e.g., Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg,
1987; Lutz, 1997b).
183
As a number of writers have emphasised, responsible learners should be
characterised, not in terms of their application to learning activities, but according to the
degree to which they accept the consequences of their behavioural choices (Bacon, 1993;
Greenberg, 1987; Lutz, 1997b; Warton, 1997; Zimmerman, 1990). Thus, it could be
argued that a student could still be regarded as a responsible learner, even though they
might not do the things that others (i.e., teachers or parents) desire or require of them.
This statement has significant implications for all stakeholders in education,
particularly with respect to defining the roles and responsibilities of students, teachers,
and school administrators and how these roles and responsibilities are communicated to
the wider community. In an era when schools and teachers are taking on increasing levels
of accountability for students’ achievement (Bacon, 1991; Gray & Chanoff, 1986;
Loughran & Derry, 1997; Warren, 1997), as evidenced by their claims of ensuring that
students achieve their potentials, it is paramount that educators consider that
responsibility for learning depends fundamentally on the student having personal
ownership of, and being accountable for, all consequences, both positive and negative.
Consequently, the recommendations for classroom interventions presented in the latter
part of this section are based on this genuine understanding of personal responsibility for
learning that emphasises real choice and freedom in learning in conjunction with
individual accountability for the outcomes of those choices.
Genuine Responsibility For Learning
The finding that students have generally concurred with the views of teachers that
responsible learners are those who do all the right things that will benefit their learning
184
and their relationships with others in the classroom [as reported by Keith et al. (1999) and
West (1994)] supports the contention that students’ understandings are substantially
influenced by their teachers and the culture of the school. However, it should also be
emphasised that if this outlook does not incorporate the two essential components of
responsibility for learning (i.e., personal control and accountability), then students can
only develop an incomplete and superficial perspective [as argued by Bacon (1991,
1993)], while being led to believe that by their diligent application and good behaviour
that they are being responsible. This conclusion has significant implications for the
development of genuine responsibility for learning in students and for the promotion of
this quality in the classrooms of the future.
This view also reinforces the importance of firstly, instigating processes that
enable the range of stakeholders in education to understand and acknowledge that
genuine responsibility for learning is based on real freedom and control of learning in
conjunction with full accountability for outcomes and secondly, having teachers in
particular, influence the development of students’ understandings of this perspective and
ultimately their learning behaviours. Thus, the development of genuine responsibility for
learning in school students should not only begin with an investigation of their
understandings of the concept, but also with some determination of how students see
themselves as learners, particularly in relation to the criteria applicable to genuinely
responsible learners.
185
Students’ Perceptions of Themselves as Learners
As this study reported, school students across a wide range of year levels have
assessed themselves fairly highly in the attitudinal and behavioural components
incorporated within the six responsibility for learning subscales. Although this
appraisement was not validated by any form of external observation of behaviour, these
findings are important in that they provide educators with the knowledge that according
to the present criteria, students are likely to see themselves as learners who are
reasonably responsible, albeit with some room for improvement. This knowledge is
valuable in that firstly, it gives educators a window into how students perceive a wide
range of aspects of their involvement in learning and their overall level of personal
responsibility for learning, and secondly, it enables educators to review their expectations
of how students apply themselves to learning at school.
These expectations, and how they are communicated, are of prime importance,
particularly in light of the conclusion made earlier that teachers play a pivotal role in
influencing students’ understandings of responsibility for learning. This conclusion,
which is based on the premise that students’ views of responsibility for learning are
predominantly moulded by external factors (namely, the culture and expectations of the
school, as articulated and supported or enforced by teachers) brings into focus the need to
explore the reasons behind why this sample saw their own levels of responsibility in such
a positive light.
While a comparison between students’ self-reports and the assessments of
responsibility by external observers is still a matter for future research, it would also be
186
worth investigating the role that specific home and learning environments may play in
influencing the development of students’ perspectives of this concept and therefore the
criteria by which they may assess their own standards of responsibility for learning. As
discussed in the previous section, it is hypothesised that teachers in their daily operations
and interactions with students have established and reinforced standards of classroom
conduct that have, to varying degrees, been adopted by students under the conviction that
they are being responsible by meeting these standards. This contention is also borne out
by the finding that there was a moderate correlation between students’ understandings of
responsibility for learning and their self-assessments of attitudes and behaviour. As noted
earlier, further work is required to determine whether this basis for self-evaluation of
levels of personal responsibility for learning is actually something distinct from being just
a “good” or a “successful” learner.
Individual Autonomy and Personal Control of Learning
As in students’ understandings of responsibility for learning, one area of students’
self-reports that has important implications for educators relates to the individual being
autonomous and having personal control of their own learning. The finding that students
have reported that, to a large degree, they feel they are in control of their own learning
(refer Chapter 4), highlights the importance of viewing autonomy and control, not from
the teachers’ perspective but from that of the learner (i.e., perceived locus of control)
(King, 1994; Martin et al., 1999; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Schunk, 1984; Stipeck &
Weisz, 1981). This conclusion reinforces the need for further research to be conducted to
determine the degree to which various independent observers would concur with the
187
students in this sample that they actually do have real control over many aspects of their
learning. Similarly, teachers or researchers could also substantiate whether students’ self-
appraisals of their application to learning and cooperation are accurate.
Students’ Attitudes Towards School and Learning
It would also be worthwhile to explore the relationship between students’ actual
classroom behaviours and how they might be appraised by external observers (such as
their teachers), within the context of the finding that this sample reported that they
strongly held the belief that “achieving at school is important for future success” (refer
Chapter 4). Given the strength of this belief, it can be assumed that when students have
reported that they are instigating a variety of positive learning behaviours it is because
they have the goal of wanting to make the best use of their learning opportunities, due to
holding this overarching attitude.
Promoting Responsibility For Learning
These issues relating to how students have appraised their own attitudes and
behaviours in respect to the concept of being a responsible learner have important
implications for those who aspire to promote these qualities in their students. As noted
earlier, the potential exists for students’ self-assessments of their own levels of personal
responsibility for learning to differ significantly from the assessments of their teachers.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, teachers, who by nature, or in their fulfilment
of the duties expected by school administrators, may find themselves either not aware of,
or fully accepting, the view that genuine responsibility for learning constitutes real
188
control (along with total ownership for consequences) thereby not properly allowing
students the freedom and accountability that defines this perspective [as advocated by
Bacon (1991, 1993); Greenberg (1987); Holt (1978)]. In response to these limitations to
the development of genuine responsibility for learning, the latter part of this section
focuses a number of recommendations specifically on the important role that teachers
play in enhancing this quality in students in their schools and classrooms.
The Association Between Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
and Their Perceptions of Themselves as Learners
Despite the finding that there was a statistically significant correlation between
students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-reported attitudes
and behaviours in all responsibility for learning subscales, there was no way of
determining from this study whether either of these variables was exerting a causal
influence on the other. As noted earlier, it is likely that when students have appraised
themselves as fitting the descriptors given and have concurred with the attributes of
responsible learners presented in the SURLQ, they have used a set of criteria for making
these determinations that has been substantially shaped by a school culture that
emphasises active and diligent application to learning tasks along with cooperating with
teachers and other students.
This conclusion has implications for how schools and teachers articulate and
model to students how responsible learners are to be appraised and therefore developed.
It is evident that given the finding that students in this sample have concurred with the
189
predominant understanding of responsibility for learning (i.e., compliance with
externally-derived standards of application in learning and classroom cooperation), as
opposed to the more controversial perspective that upholds genuine freedom and control
with full accountability for outcomes, that educators in general are inadvertently
contributing to a diminishment of personal responsibility for learning, rather than the
contrary.
Recommendations for Classroom Interventions
Given the importance of the concept of personal responsibility for learning and its
implications for not only the daily interactions between students and their teachers, but
also the ways in which schools are organised and operate, it is therefore essential that
some recommendations be offered with the aim of fostering this quality in individual
students throughout all schools. As discussed in Chapter 2, the development of
responsibility for learning in students in classrooms today is potentially hampered by a
range of restrictive influences, including: specific institutional and legislative
requirements; variances in classroom cultures as a result of different approaches by
teachers; various factors within the individual restricting the acceptance by students of
their personal responsibilities; and most significantly, that distinct stakeholder groups
invariably hold differing understandings of what this concept entails. As numerous
researchers have acknowledged, any intervention strategy will be more likely to be
successful if such constraints are taken into account (Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon,
190
1990, 1991; Corno, 1992; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Hamilton, 1978; Kerka, 1994;
Loughran & Derry, 1997).
Reforming the Culture of Schools
As noted above, it is imperative that any real attempt to enhance individual
responsibility for learning must begin with allowing students to have personal control
over as many aspects of the learning process as possible. This means fashioning a
learning environment where students have opportunities to make personal decisions over
what they learn, how they learn it, and to what standard they may desire to achieve. In
such an environment, students must not only be given greater academic freedom but they
must also perceive themselves as having this control. As noted in Chapter 2, a flexible
approach to the curriculum has also been actively campaigned by a number of theorists
who have acknowledged the importance of developing autonomy, self-direction,
independence, and personal responsibility in students (e.g., Bacon, 1990; Caffarella,
1983; Corno, 1992; Dearn, 1998; Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1984; West, 1998).
It must be emphasised that the educational freedom advocated here cannot be
instigated without the consequences of such choices being fully applied. While this
aspect of responsibility has been broadly acknowledged in the literature pertaining to
legal (Hamilton, 1978), and moral (Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Warton & Goodnow,
1991), as well as educational (Bacon, 1991; Corno, 1992; Keith et al, 1999; Lutz, 1997b;
West, 1994) contexts, debate over the extent to which young people (especially young
children) are able to appreciate fully the long-term consequences of their actions is likely
to continue.
191
Despite this limitation, it is nevertheless important that teachers and parents
support the development of responsibility in all spheres of daily living by attempting to
reinforce the potentially adverse outcomes of certain actions, while in the main, allowing
potentially detrimental decisions to be made. As Greenberg (1987) has emphasised, when
learning is based on following personal needs and interests, it is inevitable that while
mistakes and failures will naturally be incurred, important benefits would also be derived
from personally taking ownership of any errors.
Although the research of Goodnow and Warton (1992) recognised a degree of
progression from other-regulation towards self-regulation in relation to household
responsibilities, it is anticipated that some sectors of the community would not wish
young people to experience the potential effects of having not been exposed to some
minimum level of compulsory education. Be that as it may, the choice to disregard the
educational opportunities offered should not be seen as having a permanently disabling
effect on a persons’ future prospects, but as providing the all important opportunity for
wiser choices to be made, albeit at the cost of some lost time.
It could be expected that by establishing a culture in schools whereby students are
not protected from the consequences of any maladaptive learning behaviours, then the
avoidance of failure, of needing to revise or repeat, or even having to defend against
pending expulsion, would serve as an effective form of motivation for many. Viewed
from this perspective, it is imperative that schools do not compromise on the standards
expected, especially in response to any emotional display by students, hoping for lenience.
As Lutz (1997b) has argued, by entertaining the excuses that a student makes for their
failures, schools and teachers (and sometimes, parents) have not attended to their own
192
responsibilities in preparing young people for a world that still has real consequences for
actions. It is argued that this approach will be most effective if it is reinforced in the
home, the workplace, and in the media.
The Limitations of a Behavioural Portrayal of Responsibility For Learning
The finding that, students (like teachers) have in the main, supported the view that
responsible learners should be principally characterised by high levels of active
engagement in learning tasks and their social behaviours, highlights the contention that
behaviours alone, should not be used to designate personal responsibility for learning
(Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Bacon, 1991, 1993). Because this perspective does not take
into account the learners’ internalised reasons for their engagement, nor the quality of
that engagement, it can only provide, at best, a superficial and incomplete understanding
of this concept (Bacon, 1990; Loughran & Derry, 1997; Warren, 1997; West, 1994). As
Bacon (1991) has argued, if students act according to the expectations and behaviour
standards required by teachers, with the aim of avoiding some undesirable repercussions,
then they should strictly be viewed as “being held responsible” by some external power,
rather than truly responsible themselves. Thus, it is critical that any intervention program
aimed at developing individuals’ responsibility for learning must consider the influence
that external factors such as the teacher might have in this endeavour.
The Teachers’ Role in Promoting Responsibility For Learning
As Loughran and Derry (1997) have contended, teachers will need a high level of
belief in, and commitment to, this ideal. In addition to upholding the key themes of
193
allowing students to have real choice in their personal curriculums, while not shielding
them in any way from the consequences of these choices, teachers will need to rethink
their interactions with students, particularly in relation to how they judge and respond to
students’ various behaviours, as well as how they communicate and model to students,
through appropriate language and actions, the essence of genuine responsibility for
learning.
Appraising and responding to students’ behaviours. Although this study found
that students reported that they felt they were able to exert a reasonable amount of control
in the classroom, it is uncertain as to whether this sample have perceived this control in
terms of their having real choices in the classroom or whether students believe that they
are exerting this control when they are choosing to act either passively or behaving in a
disruptive manner. Although this latter view of maladaptive classroom behaviours as
students’ efforts to control their involvement in learning has been noted by a number of
researchers (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Schunk, 2001: Zimmerman, 1990), it is one that
teachers will not always appreciate (Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994). It is also asserted
that because of the significant differential in responsibility and power between teachers
and students that are customary in the classroom, teachers usually respond to such
inappropriate behaviours in a way that reflects their disapproval of this control being
exercised by the student, which can sometimes lead to teachers imposing further
sanctions and misrepresenting this type of conduct as being irresponsible (Bacon, 1991,
1993).
However, by gaining a greater awareness of what it means to be a genuinely
responsible learner, teachers will develop a more enlightened consideration of students’
194
seemingly imprudent conduct, including, for example: being distracted by another
activity or another person; leaving a particular project or course of study unfinished;
deciding not to undertake a set form of assessment; or even doing nothing for a period of
time. It is critical therefore, that teachers resist their instincts to intervene when students
are temporarily in need of direction by providing either some instructional or
motivational input or support that has not been initiated by the students. It is also argued
that when teachers direct and manage learning by make decisions without consultation
with the learner (including, for example, deciding the scope and content of what is learnt
the amount of time given to a particular topic or task, which resources will be used, or
providing external inducements or motivations to learn) then it is the teacher, rather than
the student, who is taking responsibility for these aspects of the learning process (Bacon,
1991; Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1978; Pintrich, 1995).
It is not difficult to see how the regular use by teachers of such well-meaning
responses could have a range of potentially undesirable effects on students, including:
increasing their dependence on other people to solve their various social and learning
problems; reducing their capacity for self-direction and self-motivation; and/or
reinforcing in them the belief that they are not capable, or cannot be trusted to make
worthwhile learning decisions. It is clear that all of these potential outcomes reflect a
diminished level of personal responsibility rather than enhancing it. As both Greenberg
(1987) and Holt (1983) have argued, students’ states of apparent inactivity or disinterest
in learning are not permanent and in many instances, it is the resultant boredom that
provides the best catalyst for initiating meaningful learning. It is equally important for
teachers to consider that genuine responsibility for learning necessarily involves the
195
individual being free to set their own goals, no matter how these may be judged by others
(e.g., Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1978).
Communicating and Modelling Personal Responsibility For Learning
As discussed earlier, this study found that in the open-ended responses, students
articulated their understandings of personal responsibility for learning in terms that were
most likely to be frequently expressed by classroom teachers (Keith et al., 1999; West,
1994). As West (1994) has suggested, it is important that teachers make frequent use of
specific language that reinforces the relationship between choices and the consequences
in order to positively influence how individuals view their own decisions and actions. In
the classroom, teachers should remind students that they have choices and that each
decision has an outcome, some of which may not be all that pleasant.
In conjunction with employing the language of choices and consequences, it
should be possible for teachers to demonstrate to their students how they have personally
committed themselves to a learning venture of their own personal interest, thereby
serving as a valuable real-life model of the individual taking personal responsibility for
their own learning. Such examples would also provide a clear demonstration to those who
may question the worth of individuals being autonomous, self-directed, and in control of
their own learning that the development of these attributes are embedded in the literature
that deals with lifelong learning (e.g., Corno, 1992; Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1983; Pintrich,
1995; Zimmerman, 1990) and the ideal goals of education (e.g., Bandura, 1993;
Boekaerts, 1997; Paris & Newman, 1990; Schunk, 1995)
196
As Greenberg (1987) has argued, the modelling of self-directed learning should
not be expected only of adults and that classrooms where students are free to choose and
pursue their learning needs and interests will provide extensive examples of students
enjoying the benefits of this approach to learning. Through such modelling, students
should also come to realise that self-directed learning is not without its motivational ups
and downs, nor its various hurdles that must be overcome, including for example, having
to decide and seek out the best source of assistance for a particular learning problem
and/or having moments of inactivity and boredom.
Focussing on the Learner
By asking students to rate their own attitudes and behaviours, this study required
students to reflect on themselves as learners, thereby highlighting the degree to which
they felt they were responsible for their own learning. By presenting regular references to
the individual having positive attitudes towards learning and exerting control of their
behaviours in the classroom, the findings of the SRLABQ also highlighted the critical
role that the learner plays in the learning process. Given the significance of the theme of
individual autonomy and personal control to responsibility for learning, the roles that
students play in managing their own learning should therefore be seen as responsibilities
belonging to the student, rather than to someone else. Thus, it is argued that in order for
individual students to become genuinely responsible for their own learning, a major
change in the roles and responsibilities of learners will need to take place.
As noted above, responsible learners will need to take responsibility for deciding
for themselves what is worth learning (i.e., personal goals and standards, based on
197
personal needs or interests), which human or non-human resources will support this
learning, and the rate at which a particular subject or topic is learnt. According to some
theorists, responsible learners do not need, nor do they want, another person to make
these decisions for them (Greenberg, 1987; Holt, 1978, 1983). Hand in hand with this
freedom is the requirement for responsible learners to fully accept the full range of
consequences of their choices at all stages of their learning. By being personally
responsible for directing and managing their own learning, such learners must be active
in setting their own goals and articulating these goals to those whom they have enlisted to
support their learning. Thus, the responsible learner has no one, other than themselves, to
blame when a goal has not been achieved, or they lacked motivation, or when they have
wasted their time. Conversely, when responsible learners achieve the goals that they have
personally set for themselves, they are also developing the important qualities of
independence, persistence, and self-motivation (Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987,
1994; Greenberg & Sadofsky, 1992; Holt, 1978).
Considering Students’ Perceptions of Themselves as Learners
When making judgments about the extent to which students apply themselves to
their learning, teachers should consider the other major finding of this research, namely
that students across all year levels have perceived themselves as being reasonably
responsible in the classroom. This finding has important implications for how teachers
communicate expectations to students as well as how they justify their decisions to
intervene in students’ learning. It is asserted that if teachers’ judgments of students’
actions and attitudes differ significantly from the way they are perceived by the students
198
themselves, then increased tension between these parties will result. Thus, it is argued
that teachers should make as much allowance as possible for students to self-assess the
quality and quantity of their engagement in learning, the effectiveness of their learning
strategy choices, the extent to which the environment supports their learning, and most
importantly, their progress towards the achievement of personal learning goals.
Students’ Individual Differences
Educators may also wish to consider the specific year level and gender differences
in students’ understandings and their self-reported attitudes and behaviours found in this
study. With respect to year level differences, the finding that after discounting the Year 5
data, there was a pattern of significant differences in which the oldest group (Year 11s)
consistently reported a higher degree of agreement with the portrayal of responsible
learners presented in the SURLQ (while the Year 9s scored lowest in all subscales),
supports the hypothesis that an understanding of responsibility is to some extent,
influenced by students’ individual developmental progress and/or maturity levels
(Goodnow & Warton, 1992; Warton, 1997; Warton & Goodnow, 1991).
This theory is also supported by the finding that in most subscales, the Year 9s
rated themselves as having the lowest level of responsibility for learning. It is suggested
that teachers of this year level will need to overcome this temporary lack of maturity if
they aspire to influence students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and/or
their perceived responsibility levels. As there were no significant gender differences in
either students’ understandings of responsibility for learning or their self-reported
learning attitudes and behaviours (refer Chapter 4), educators do not need to make any
199
significant allowances for gender groups when aiming to develop this quality in their
students.
Conclusions
It is clear that the findings of this study have important implications for all
stakeholder groups, especially when the literature pertaining to how effective,
independent, lifelong learners are nurtured and the purposes of schooling are appraised.
As emphasised in Chapters 1 and 2, responsibility for learning has been shown to be a
fundamental component of these important topics. Within the literature, personal
responsibility for learning, along with the themes of academic self-regulation, individual
autonomy, self-directedness, self-motivation, and independence are emphasised in
guiding the work of practitioners in all types of schools (Boekaerts, 1997; Corno, 1992;
Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman, 1986, 1990;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). However, as argued previously, it is important that
a clear understanding of genuine responsibility for learning be adopted so that there is
consistency of viewpoint among stakeholder groups as well as providing a clear picture
of what educators are aiming to achieve when fostering personal responsibility in their
students (Bacon, 1991, 1993; Gray & Chanoff, 1986; Greenberg, 1987; Warton, 1997).
Thus, it should be reiterated that genuine responsibility for learning depends on
the individual having real control over the direction of that learning in conjunction with
full accountability for the consequences associated with this freedom. However, there is
some concern that because this study found that students viewed responsible learners
200
predominantly in terms of compliance with standards of application to learning and
behaviour set by the teacher and the school, they have either been influenced by teachers
and administrators to believe that responsibility simply means doing the right thing or
that they may be confusing responsibility with prudence. It is also argued that by
adopting this compliance-based perspective and by allowing external parties to make the
majority of decisions regarding curriculums, learning activities, time allocation, resources,
and standards to be achieved, the promotion of genuine responsibility can only be stalled.
This study highlights the literature that has acknowledged the wide range of
personal and achievement benefits to students that a self-regulated (e.g., Bandura, 1986;
Pintrich, 1995; Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Zimmerman, 1998, 2001; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988), self-directed (e.g., Caffarella, 1983; Kerka, 1994; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 1990), independent (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Paris &
Newman, 1990; Schunk, 1995), and responsible (e.g., Bacon, 1991; Corno, 1992; Gray &
Chanoff, 1986; Zimmerman, 1990) approach to learning will generate. Consequently, the
publication of these reports (along with the current research) has the potential to
influence educators and policy-makers in firstly, recognising the capacity that individuals
have autonomy and self-determination and secondly, in making the necessary
modifications to school and classroom environments so that these attributes may be
fostered. It is also imperative that teachers reflect on the ubiquity of self-directed learning
that is evident in varying degrees within individuals of all ages in all aspects of everyday
life. In doing so, teachers also need to feel empowered to establish processes in
classrooms whereby students can learn about responsibility by having direct experience
201
in freely pursuing subjects and topics that are personally relevant to them (i.e., based on
individual learning needs and/or interests) and having these choices supported.
Finally, it must also be emphasised that in order for educational professionals to
internalise an understanding of genuine responsibility for learning as referred to above, a
fundamental shift in philosophy and practice is necessary. Such reforms would involve a
new approach to the purposes and structure of schools and the curriculum, including a
reconsideration of the roles and responsibilities of the teacher, and for the re-examination
of the prevailing tradition whereby external bodies such as the government and the
teacher have assumed responsibility for determining what young people need to know
and how they should come to know it.
It is clear that the implications discussed above have considerable potential to
generate a wide range of questions relating not only to defining and measuring
responsibility for learning, but also to the investigation of how students internalise their
responsibilities and perceive their educational experiences. Such future research
possibilities will be presented in the final chapter following a summary of the study and a
discussion of the range of limitations inherent within the study.
202
203
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated a number of important research questions that were
prompted by the existing literature relating to the concept of responsibility for learning.
As presented in Chapter 1, the importance of promoting personal responsibility for
learning among school students is based on the belief that this quality contributes to
effective learners who are independent, self-directed, and self-motivated and should
therefore play an important role in guiding the goals of all education. This chapter also
highlighted the importance of one of the key factors relating to the promotion of this
feature in modern classrooms, namely overcoming the lack of consensus that exists
among certain groups as to the precise meaning of responsibility for learning. It was
particularly emphasised that if the level of responsibility for learning in students was to
be improved, then it is essential that their understandings of the concept be established
and that this understanding should mirror to a large degree that of teachers and school
administrators. The investigation of students’ views of themselves as responsible learners
was also regarded as important in determining the extent to which students are lacking
responsibility, as proposed in the literature.
Consequently, this study focussed on the investigation of three key research
questions, which included determining: firstly, how the concept of responsibility for
learning is understood by school students; secondly, the degree to which the same
students considered themselves as holding the attributes of a responsible learner,
according to a number of specific responsibility for learning criteria; and thirdly, the
204
nature and extent of the association between students’ understandings of responsibility
for learning and their self-reported learning attitudes and behaviours. Within these
questions this study aimed to collect meaningful data from a sample that incorporated a
wide range of year level groupings as well as both gender groups, so the decision was
made to collect the data by employing a written survey design.
With respect to the first research question, this study employed two distinct
methods of collecting data pertaining to students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning. These methods incorporated an open-ended question, followed by the SURLQ
(a 40 item Likert-type questionnaire, refer Appendix B). As was explained in Chapter 3,
the individual items in this second questionnaire and that used to investigate the second
research question (the SRLABQ, refer Appendix B) were derived from the various
attitudinal and behavioural descriptors offered within the literature (refer Appendix A).
Chapter 3 also described how the data gathered from these instruments was analysed.
In analysing the first set of data for students’ understandings of responsibility for
learning the open-ended responses were sorted according to their conceptual similarities
into a number of thematic categories that largely mirrored those established from the
literature (refer Appendix A and C). In the second measure the data from the six
responsibility for learning subscales and the 40 individual items from the SURLQ were
analysed descriptively (i.e., mean sores and standard deviations) and compared. The
process of analysing the quantitative data was repeated for the SRLABQ. The third
research question was investigated by firstly, calculating the correlations between the
mean scores of the corresponding pairs of subscales from the SURLQ and the SRLABQ
data, followed by calculating the differences between the same pairs of means scores.
205
The findings from these data analysis procedures were presented in detail in the
fourth chapter and are discussed fully in relation to the existing literature in Chapter 5. It
was found that in the open-ended format, students predominantly described responsible
learners in behavioural terms that involved a high degree of active application to learning
activities and cooperation with teachers and other students in the classroom. The
observation that these characteristics clearly reflected that portion of the literature that
presented the views of teachers (refer Chapter 2) led to the conclusion that students have
been significantly influenced by teachers and school administrators to think of
responsibility for learning in terms of compliance with the established learning and
behavioural standards.
The data from the SURLQ showed that students reported a greater
acknowledgement of the attitudinal features of responsibility for learning than in the
open-ended questionnaire (as was featured within the literature) as well as a strong
preference for the two behavioural subscales of application to learning and cooperation.
Data from both questionnaires also showed that students were also less likely to associate
responsible learners with being autonomous and in control of their own learning although
the literature greatly emphasises this theme. The finding that the Year 5 subgroup showed
a much higher degree of agreement with all six of the responsibility for learning
subscales (as evidenced by the Year 5 mean scores being significantly higher than
virtually all the other year levels) led to the conclusion that the data from this group
should be approached with considerable caution.
With respect to the second research question, students reported themselves to be
reasonably responsible learners (with moderately high scores in all responsibility for
206
learning subscales). This finding was interpreted as being in contrast with those elements
of the literature that expressed the concern that students were increasingly showing that
they were not being responsible in the classroom. As in the SURLQ data, the statistically
significant differences in year level scores across all subscales supported the earlier
conclusion that the Year 5 data should not be considered with a great deal of confidence.
Data pertaining to the third research question showed a reasonable correlation
between students’ understandings of responsibility for learning and their self-reported
learning attitudes and behaviours (refer Chapter 4). Although this correlation established
some relationship between these two measures, without indicating any element of
causality, it could only be concluded that students were likely to view themselves as
responsible learners in a way that reflects their understandings of the concept.
As presented in the previous chapter (Chapter 5) such conclusions (along with a
number of others) were made within the constraints inherent within the data collection
processes. It is also hoped that the implications of the study discussed in the previous
chapter will stimulate further research into the many issues relating to the concept of
responsibility for learning. The remainder of this chapter is composed of two major
sections, which includes a critical appraisal of the perceived limitations of the current
research, followed by a review of the possibilities for further research that could emanate
from this study.
207
Limitations of Current Research
A critical analysis of this research points to a number of limitations that should be
considered when appraising its value to the educational community. Such limitations are
detailed below, and where appropriate, practical suggestions are described, showing how
future researchers in similar fields could improve upon this study. These limitations
include issues relating to the data collection processes (including the formulation and
application of the survey instruments) and the participation of survey respondents.
The Data Collection Processes
One of the major limitations associated with the data collection processes
involved both the formulation of the two Likert-type response questionnaires (i.e., the
SURLQ and the SRLABQ) and the analysis of the many statements provided by the
open-ended questionnaire. In both cases it was necessary to arrange an extensive
catalogue of descriptive characteristics (that were either drawn from the literature or
collected from students) into distinct groups according to some judgment as to the most
appropriate conceptual fit with a number of underlying themes. As discussed in the
Research Methodology chapter (Chapter 3), the complexity of such decisions
necessitated the employment of a panel of experts who were familiar with the terms
involved and resolved any discrepancies by discussion. As this process of arranging
descriptors according to their common underlying themes was integral to both the
formulation of The Responsibility For Learning Inventory (refer Appendix A) and the
208
analysis of the open-ended responses it is suggested that similar research in the future
should utilise the statistical procedure of factor analysis to ensure validity and
consistency of thematic groupings.
It was evident that the open-ended question contributed considerably to the
research question of determining students’ understandings of responsibility for learning.
However, this method of data collection was in a small way limited by the vagueness and
imprecision of some of the responses. It is argued that the same question could be
investigated by interview which would enable the ambiguous responses to be clarified
more specifically (through probing respondents by further questioning) and would
explore whether the respondent had differentiated in their minds a responsible learner
with other types of learners that might be portrayed by a similar set of positive attitudes
and behaviours (e.g., “independent”, “mature”, “self-motivated”, or “successful”
learners).
Such a process of data collection would also allow the researcher to explore
whether responsibility was actually considered as being synonymous with behaving
cooperatively in social contexts. It is hypothesised that future research investigating
understandings of responsibility for learning in various non-compulsory learning contexts,
including for example, various out-of-class sport, art, music and drama activities or
tutoring workshops in other subject areas would show cooperation and general social
behaviour to be much less significant. However, the time required for interviews to be
conducted would not encourage the collection of data from sample sizes large enough to
explore any year level differences.
209
The Participation of Students
As outlined in Chapter 3, once the final inventory of 40 descriptive items was
determined (including placing them in the most appropriate subscales), the task of
rewording them in the simplest possible style (in order to encourage inclusiveness of
students’ varying comprehension levels) was aided by conducting a number of trials with
children of representative ages. Despite this groundwork, it became evident that a small
number of items occasionally required the researcher to offer further explanations to
individual students, meaning that some items may not always have been completely
understood.
This issue of determining whether particular items were clearly comprehended by
participants was particularly pertinent to the two Likert-type response questionnaires.
While it was possible in the open-ended format to easily determine the number of
respondents who either did not understand the question or chose to limit their
participation, both the Likert-type response questionnaires (which only required that a
number be checked against each item) did not readily allow for these students to be
identified. This form of data collection, while being expedient for large sample sizes, still
placed the onus for seeking help in comprehending the statements onto the individual
respondent.
It is possible that in all year level groups there could have been some
unwillingness by students to ask for help with a particular item, just as there may have
been some reluctance in students for putting genuine and thoughtful effort into
responding to all elements of the survey. As noted in Chapter 5, this possibility was felt
most keenly in classes where Year 9 boys appeared to be less enthusiastic to respond to
210
any activity that they did not personally value. In contrast, the youngest year level, not
unexpectedly, did ask more comprehension related questions and appeared to show an
interest in completing the survey to the best of their ability. Although only a relatively
small number of questionnaires were either incomplete or showed an obvious pattern in
the responses (indicating a lack of interest in the task), the possibility remains that a
certain percentage of students may have not always completely understood the meaning
of the item that they were responding to (i.e., response bias).
However, the pre-testing of the Likert-type response questionnaires by a number
of younger children enabled the researcher to practice the sorts of supportive statements
that would need to be provided to students in the classrooms so that the questionnaire
items could be clarified without being suggestive in any way. This personalised mode of
support was critical, not only for assisting those students who asked for further
explanation but also in providing the necessary help without risking inadvertently
influencing their responses. In a very small number of cases the researcher was able to
utilise the classroom teacher in a similar one-on-one support role, with those younger
students who indicated that they were having some difficulty with some aspect of the
survey process. This issue, although relatively insignificant, reinforces the potential that
exists for personal interviews to be utilised in the collection of valid data relating to this
subject.
In recognising these limitations, it is anticipated that future development of the
SURLQ and the SRLABQ would involve not only rewording some of the items, but also
a possible reduction in their total number. Although trials of the final questionnaires
indicated that the time required for completion was not excessive, the fact that the full
211
survey (incorporating the two questionnaires) called for responses to some 80 individual
items in the one sitting meant that some students might have lost interest before reaching
the end. This issue of students’ willingness to commit themselves to the survey was also
noted in the way a number of older students expressed their apprehension over the future
use of their responses. A great deal of emphasis was given to stressing to all classes, that
complete confidentiality would be maintained (despite asking for names on the survey
cover sheet) and that only the researcher would have access to the completed
questionnaires and that the reporting of results would only involve statements applicable
to the whole student sample or anonymous subgroups.
In addition to these limitations associated with students’ levels of comprehension
and their willingness to participate fully in the survey, the specific questionnaire
investigating how students have reported their own learning attitudes and behaviours (i.e.,
the SRLABQ) also involved the issue of bias possibly occurring due to a desire to present
a favourable portrayal of themselves. As emphasised in Chapter 5, the aim of this
component of the research was not to determine how responsible students actually were
(as per some formalised external assessment), but to determine how students viewed
themselves according to the established criteria.
Conclusions
Despite the limitations discussed above, it was considered that based on a
comprehensive review of the current literature in fields relating to responsibility for
learning, that the design, data collection and analysis processes, and sample groups were
212
appropriate for the stated research questions. Although the limitations of this research
may lead to some suggestion of reduced validity and reliability, it is expected that
through future investigation of similar research questions that a more precise and concise
measure of responsibility for learning will be forthcoming. Once this has been achieved,
it is anticipated that subsequent studies will lead to the development of a reliable and
practical means of assessing the attributes of responsible learners and to substantiate the
conclusions drawn in the current study.
Having considered the limitations of this research, it is now appropriate to discuss
the numerous research possibilities relating to responsibility for learning that may be
prompted by this study.
Future Research Possibilities
In asserting that personal responsibility for learning is a fundamental concept that
has the potential to explain and influence students’ attitudinal and behavioural responses
as well as their learning and achievement, it is envisaged that researchers will become
interested in the many related research possibilities. It is hoped that such subsequent work
in this field will contribute to the type of educational reform that recognises the
importance of individual autonomy, self-directedness, independence and personal
responsibility in learning. This section presents many of these possibilities, within the
two general headings of Determining Understandings of Personal Responsibility For
Learning, and Measuring Levels of Responsibility For Learning. This section concludes
by posing a number of important questions relating to the responsibilities assumed by
213
various parties in providing education for young people followed by the suggestion of
further research that compares the range of outcomes resulting from students attending
traditional schooling with those who are genuinely responsible for their own learning.
Determining Understandings of Personal Responsibility For Learning
As introduced in the Rationale (refer Chapter 1), this study acknowledges the
need for researchers and educators to become aware of how various groups have
described their understandings of personal responsibility for learning. It was also noted in
the review of literature (refer Chapter 2) that certain parties held differing perspectives on
this important concept. Thus, there is clearly immense potential for future researchers to
investigate the understandings of other stakeholder groups, including other student
groups, teachers, school administrators, and education theorists and policy-makers.
Irrespective of the data collection procedures employed it would be worth
investigating the extent to which such groups demonstrated their focus on specific themes.
For example, it is hypothesised that depending on educational background and experience
in learning contexts in which students have greater levels of personal responsibility for
their involvement in learning (as in the numerous learning situations that operate on the
premise that the learner is responsible for their attendance) that certain groups would
emphasise the themes of personal freedom and control of learning in conjunction with
high levels of accountability for outcomes.
The question of whether students are able to internalise various positive attitudes
towards learning and school (and whether they are likely to), as a result of their exposure
214
to learning environments where true choice in learning is a real option (i.e., where all
forms of external direction and constraint in learning are nonexistent) is possibly best
explored by comparing those attitudes and understandings of personal responsibility held
by a sample of the students enrolled at the Sudbury Valley School in the USA (as
discussed in Chapters 2 and 5) with sample groups similar to those surveyed in the
current study. This type of comparative study would contribute to a better appreciation of
the influence that a particular environment has in the development of an understanding of
personal responsibility among young learners. It is possible that this environment may
override the effects of age (or maturity) by young students gaining a positive orientation
towards school and learning in general. As hypothesised in the previous chapter (refer
Discussion, Chapter 5) students whose schooling experiences have been restricted to
formal situations where external sources of direction and control have been omnipresent
(i.e., from teachers and school administrators) are expected to concur with the prevailing
view that a responsible learner is one who applies themselves fully and behaves
appropriately in the classroom.
Future researchers might also explore the role that consequences (or students’
perceptions of the nature, impact and seriousness of consequences) plays, in not only
determining how responsibility for learning is viewed, but also in the way in which
certain detrimental outcomes influence individuals’ reasons and decisions for applying
themselves to learning. Although attribution theory has offered some explanation of how
individuals view the contribution of effort and ability to success and failure (e.g.,
Alderman, 1999; Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Whelan & Teddlie, 1989), further work is
warranted in determining the extent to which students are motivated by a concern over
215
avoiding any real or perceived negative consequences of their learning or social
behaviours. Future research that evaluates the effectiveness of a classroom intervention
program (where all levels of faculty reinforced, by both language and action, that
students should consider the effectiveness of their chosen learning behaviours and that
certain actions will result in undesirable consequences) might support the view that
students’ understandings of personal responsibility for learning are strongly influenced by
this type of culture.
Such investigations could also target the question of specifically determining
whether the understandings of various groups actually involve distinguishing between
responsible learners and those types of learners that might hold similar sets of attributes,
such as “successful”, “effective”, “autonomous”, “self-motivated”, “independent”, or
“self-regulated” learners.
Measuring Levels of Responsibility For Learning
Utilising a Multifaceted Approach
It is assumed that when writers have claimed that teachers and administrators are
concerned that students lack responsibility in the classroom (Bacon, 1990; Corno, 1992;
Keith et al., 1999; Younger & Warrington, 1999) that a reliable assessment process has
been applied. Up to this point, researchers have utilised a variety of methods to determine
students’ levels of personal responsibility for learning in the classroom, including the
observations and judgments of teachers (Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994), the observations
of classroom interactions combined with personal interviews with students (as did Bacon,
216
1993), and students’ self-reports of their attitudes and behaviours (Keith et al., 1999;
Moon et al., 1993). Irrespective of the criteria adopted, a multi-faceted approach to the
measurement of students’ levels of responsibility that incorporates some form of
externally derived evaluation (e.g., judgments by class teachers) would enhance the
validity and accuracy of students’ self-reports (Assor & Connell, 1992). It would be
possible to design a teacher observation and rating checklist [as employed by Keith et al.
(1999) and West (1994)] that would yield this type of data. It would also be possible to
employ an independent assessment mechanism (e.g., a researcher or their assistant) as a
means of overcoming any kind of bias that may be inherent in any measure of student
behaviour or attitude that is derived solely from the judgments of teachers.
Evaluating Classroom Interventions
The establishment of a valid and reliable measure of personal responsibility for
learning would also be valuable in evaluating the outcomes of various intervention
strategies that educators have instigated with the aim of developing those attributes that
are deemed essential for students to become independent, self-directed, and effective
lifelong learners. Although it would be expected that the appraisal of such programs
would be typically conducted by those who have instigated them (i.e., teachers and/or
administrators), researchers have acknowledged that any real development in
responsibility in learning should ideally incorporate opportunities for students to self-
evaluate their own personal development (Keith et al., 1999; West, 1994) and for their
perceptions to have prominence (Assor & Connell, 1992; Bacon, 1993; Gray & Chanoff,
1986).
217
The Influence of Learning Environments
It would also be worthwhile to investigate over an extended period of time, the
extent to which particular types of learning environments actually influence students’
levels of personal responsibility for learning. Comparisons of levels of personal
responsibility (or conversely, irresponsibility) between students in learning contexts
differentiated by variables such as the amount of real (or perceived) choice or individual
freedoms in learning, the degree of teacher and administrative support for individual
responsibility, as well as the level of parental collaboration with such an approach, would
provide the foundation for a wide range of research projects. Of particular interest would
be a comparison of levels of personal responsibility for learning between students in
typical school classrooms and those who are involved in some form of non-compulsory
learning activity in which the student has made a conscious decision to attend (including,
for example, the numerous extra-curricula and non-compulsory learning initiatives
offered in schools today).
Consequently, if teachers in traditional classrooms (as well as those
administrators and education policy-makers who oversee them) come to accept the
premise that a responsible learner is characterised not by their compliance, but by
exercising real control over their own learning and by being fully accountable for their
decisions, then some advancement in students’ levels of personal responsibility might
accrue. It remains to be seen whether a learning environment based on real freedom of
choice and ownership of consequences and supported by teachers and administrators who
have accepted this progressive, yet controversial approach will produce the sort of
218
attitudes and behaviours in learners that is valued by parents, employers and the
community in general.
Comparisons between learning environments could stimulate further research
interest in the investigation of a number of related questions, including determining: the
many internalised attitudes and reasons that individuals have for varying their level of
involvement and application to learning relative to specific topics and/or tasks within
different classes and subjects; the extent to which individuals display the attributes of
self-regulated learning; the amount of control over the scope and direction of learning
that is desired by individuals; the extent to which personal responsibility for learning
influences individuals to overcome the known barriers to help-seeking and questioning;
as well as assessing the academic achievement and personal benefits of individuals being
personally responsible for their own learning.
Other Significant Questions
In conclusion, it is worth highlighting a number of other related issues that would
prompt potentially intriguing topics for research involving the gathering of the opinions
of a wide range of stakeholder groups within the broader community. Such research
could investigate how specific groups such as parents, employers, community leaders,
elected government officials, and students themselves respond to questions such as the
following: Whether personal responsibility for learning should be defined in terms of
freedom and control, with accountability for consequences, or active engagement in
learning and behavioural compliance and/or prudent decision-making?; Who should be
219
responsible for the learning and education of all young people?; What role should the
government play in the provision and regulation of education?; What should be the
purposes and goals of schools and the education system?; What rights do parents have in
the education of their children?; and, What freedoms and rights should children have in
deciding and pursuing their own learning goals?
Furthermore, it is argued that when the necessity (or responsibility) for choosing
what learning needs and interests an individual should follow, what knowledge or skills
must be gained in the course of these pursuits, or what an individual should do with his or
her time, is reduced by having the school system make these sorts of decisions, then the
capacity for independence, self-directedness, and self-motivation in lifelong learning will
also be diminished. A longitudinal study that compares the extent to which genuinely
responsible learners (i.e., those who have had considerable exposure to a schooling
environment based on real freedom and full accountability) are better off academically,
vocationally, and/or personally than their traditionally schooled counterparts, would
present a formidable challenge to researchers. Such a study could potentially lead to
educators having a better understanding of how and why students respond to their
schooling experiences.
It is also hoped that this research will encourage widespread debate among all
stakeholders and interested parties exploring these important questions in addition to
firstly, determining the attributes that should be developed in young people so that they
can actively contribute to a future society that is socially and environmentally sustainable
and secondly, the most effective means by which to achieve these goals.
220
221
REFERENCES Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving
students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 94–101.
Aitken, J. E., & Neer, M. R. (1993). College student question-asking: The relationship
of classroom communication apprehension and motivation. The Southern Communication Journal, 59(1), 73–81.
Alderman, K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and
learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’
learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Anderson, L. M., & Prawat, R. S. (1983). Responsibility in the classroom: A synthesis
of research on teaching self-control. Educational Leadership, 40(7), 62–66. Archer, J. (1998, November). Turning motivation into self-regulation. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide, South Australia.
Assor, A., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Validity of students’ self-reports as measures of
performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 25 – 45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bacon, C. S. (1990). Creating responsible students. Clearing House, 64(1), 54–57. Bacon, C. S. (1991). Being held responsible versus being responsible. Clearing House,
64(6), 395–399. Bacon, C. S. (1993). Student responsibility for learning. Adolescence, 28(109),
199–212. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
222
Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755–765.
Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). The nature and nurture of the self-directed
learner. Educational Leadership, 92(50), 75–79. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by
researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.
Boekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: strengths and weaknesses
of the self-regulated learning approach – EARLI Presidential Address, 2001. Learning and Instruction, 12(2002), 598–604.
Bogart, L. M. (1998). The relationship of stereotypes about helpers to help-seeking
judgments, preferences, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1264–1275.
Burley, D. (1990). Informal Education – a place in the new School Curriculum.
In T. Jeffs and M. Smith (Eds), Using informal education: An alternative to casework, teaching, and control? (pp. 61-88). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press
Butler, R., & Newman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-
seeking behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 261–271.
Caffarella, R. S. (1983). Fostering self-directed learning in post-secondary education:
The use of learning contracts. Lifelong Learning, 7(3), 7–26. Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333–346. Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take responsibility for learning and
performance. The Elementary School Journal, 93(1), 69–83. Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and practices.
In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 229–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives ( 2nd ed., pp. 191–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
223
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 88–108.
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper Collins Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper Collins. Daly, J. A., Kreiser, P. O., & Roghaar, L. A. (1994). Question-asking comfort:
Explorations of the demography of communication in the eighth grade classroom. Communication Education, 43, 27–41.
Dearn, J. M. (1998). Flexible learning: Challenging traditional models of university
teaching. Education for Library and Information Services: Australia, 15(3), 99–107.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1992) Initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated
learning and achievement. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 9–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to
assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 20(3), 197–210. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1040–048. Elliot, E. S. (1997). Classic and contemporary approaches to achievement motivation.
In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and Achievement (Vol 10, pp. 143–156). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the
classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
224
Gillespie, C. (1990). Questions about student-generated questions. Journal of Reading, 34(4), 250–257.
Goodnow, J. J., & Warton, P. M. (1992). Understanding responsibility: Adolescents’
views of delegation and follow-through within the family. Social Development, 1(2), 89–106.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.
Gray, P., & Chanoff, D. (1986). Democratic schooling: What happens to young people
who have charge of their own education. American Journal of Education, 94(2), 182–213.
Grayson, A., Miller, H., & Clarke, D. D. (1998). Identifying barriers to help-seeking: A
qualitative analysis of students’ preparedness to seek help from tutors. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 26(2), 237–253.
Greenberg, D. (1987). Free at last: The Sudbury Valley School. Framingham, MA:
The Sudbury Valley School Press. Greenberg, D. (1994). Worlds in Creation. Framingham, MA: The Sudbury Valley
School Press. Greenberg, D., & Sadofsky, M. (1992). Legacy of Trust: Life After the Sudbury Valley School Experience. Framingham, MA: The Sudbury Valley School Press. Greenberg, D., Sadofsky, M., & Lempka, J. (2005). The Pursuit of Happiness: The Lives of Sudbury Valley Alumni. Framingham, MA: The Sudbury Valley School Press. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate
statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An
experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-
regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154.
Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Who is responsible? Toward a social psychology of
responsibility attribution. Social Psychology, 41(4), 316–328. Harber, C. (1995). Developing Democratic Education. Ticknall, Derby: Education Now
Publishing Co-operative.
225
Harter, S. (1992). Relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation in the classroom. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 77 – 114). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holt, J. (1978). Never too late. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Holt, J. (1983). How children learn. London: Penguin Books. Holt, J. (1984). How children fail. London: Penguin Books. Karabenick, S. A. (1992, April). Help-seeking in college classrooms: The role of
perceived teacher support and teacher effectiveness in the student questioning process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1988). Help-seeking and the need for academic
assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 406–408. Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1991). Relationship of academic help-seeking to the
use of learning strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior in college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 221–230.
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of
Psychology, 44, 23–52. Kasambira, K. P. (1984, January). Student motivation: A recipe for teacher educators.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, New Orleans, LA.
Keith, M., Puzerewski, B., & Raczynski, P. (1999) Improving student responsibility
for learning and behavior through ownership development. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL.
Kerka, S. (1994). Self-directed learning: Myths and realities. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, 1994, 1–4. King, A. (1994). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in
guided student-generated questioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(2), 163–185.
Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-
discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(2), 97–129.
226
Lindner, R. W., & Harris, B. R. (1993, January). Teaching self-regulated learning strategies. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LO.
Lindner, R. W., Harris, B. R., & Gordon, W. I. (1996, April). The design and
development of the “Self-Regulated Learning Inventory”: A status report. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Loughran, J., & Derry, N. (1997). Researching teaching for understanding: The
students’ perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 925–938.
Lutz, W. (1997a). All our students are above average. Part I. Curriculum Review,
36(5), 1–2. Lutz, W. (1997b). All our students are above average. Part II. Curriculum Review,
36(2), 1–2. Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students’ motives for
communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155–164.
McCombs, B. L. (1986). The role of the self-system in self-regulated learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 314–332. Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals. In M. L.
Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, (Volume 7, pp. 261–285). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D. H.
Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meighan, R. (2001) Natural learning and the national curriculum: Any age, any time,
any place, any pathway, any pace. Nottingham, Educational Heretics Press. Moon, S-B., Kim, J. G., & McLean, J. E. (1993, November). A comparison of Korean
and American students’ attitudes about school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Association, New Orleans, LA.
Neill, A.S. (1960). Summerhill. New York: Hart Publishing Co.
227
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Help-seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill in children. Developmental Review, 1, 224–246.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. A. (1987). Necessary and unnecessary help-seeking in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148(1), 53–62.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. A., & Gumerman, R. A. (1984). Children’s perceptions of helpers
and helper motivation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 1–12. Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Jones, E. (1990). Cognitive-motivational influences on the task-
related help-seeking behavior of black children. Child Development, 61, 581–589.
Newman, R. S. (1990). Children’s help-seeking in the classroom: The role of
motivational factors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 71–80.
Newman, R. S., & Goldin, L. (1990). Children’s reluctance to seek help with
schoolwork. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 92–100. Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989) The constructivist approach to self-regulation and
learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self- regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 169–200). New York: Springer – Verlag.
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102. Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that
support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715–729. Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. New Directions For
Teaching and Learning, 63, 3–12. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the
college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, (Volume 7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Pittman, T. S., & Boggiano, A. K. (1992). Psychological perspectives on motivation and
achievement. In A. K. Boggiano, & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 1 – 8). New York: Cambridge University Press.
228
Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (1996). Cultural differences in the use of strategies for self- regulated learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 845–871.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their
use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87–100.
The Queensland Teachers’ Union (2005). The Courier-Mail, 12 April, 2005. Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self-regulated learning in gifted students.
Roeper Review, 15(2), 98–103. Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn for the ‘80s. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merill
Publishing Co. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761.
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not
intrinsically motivated: Theory of internalisation and self-regulation in school. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 167 –188). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-
report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550–558.
Ryan, A. M., & Hicks, L. (1997). Social goals, academic goals, and avoiding seeking
help in the classroom. Journal of Adolescence, 17(2), 152–165. Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation
and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 329–341.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a
boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 379–390.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 9(1), 48–58. Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71–86.
229
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Goal-setting and self-evaluation: A social cognitive perspective on self-regulation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. (Vol 7, pp. 85–113). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1992). Theory and research on students’ perceptions in the classroom. In
D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 1– 19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning include student
perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 213–216. Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, (2nd ed., pp. 125 – 152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory
competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Conclusions and future directions for
academic interventions. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self- regulated learning - from teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 225–235). New York: Guilford Press.
Sparks, E. (2005). Education Choices Issue 01, Feb 2005 Stipeck, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stipeck, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 101–137. Stoynoff, S. (1996). Self-regulated learning strategies of international students: A
study of high- and low-achievements. College Student Journal, 30(3), 329–336. Strauss, & Corbin, (1998). The basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The Sudbury Valley School. Framingham, MA. www.sudval.org Talbot, G. L. (1997). Can self-regulated learning be taught to college students?
Opinion Papers: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ED 409 289. 1–21.
230
Utley, A. (1997). Sages on stage loath to change. Times Higher Education Supplement, Issue 1303. (1997,October, 24), 8–9.
van der Meij, H. (1988). Constraints on question asking in classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(3), 401–405. Wang, M. C., & Peverly, S. T. (1986). The self-instructive process in classroom
learning contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 370–404. Warren, R. G. (1997). Engaging students in active learning. About Campus, 2(1),
16–20. Warton, P. M. (1997). Learning about responsibility: Lessons from homework. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 213–221. Warton, P. M., & Goodnow, J. J. (1991). The nature of responsibility: Children’s
understanding of “Your Job”. Child Development, 62, 156–165. West, L. (1994). Spokane Community College annual institutional assessment report,
1993-1994. Spokane Community College, Spokane, WA: (pp. 2 – 177). West, R., & Pearson, J. C. (1994). Antecedent and consequent conditions of student
questioning: An analysis of classroom discourse across the university. Communication Education, 43 (October), 299–311.
Whelan, C. S., & Teddlie, C. (1989, March) Self-fulfilling prophesy and attribution of
responsibility: Is there a causal link to achievement? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Winne, P. H. (1995a). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 30(4), 173–187. Winne, P. H. (1995b). Self-regulated learning is ubiquitous but its forms vary with
knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 223–228. Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 224–235. Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal
orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238.
231
Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (1999). ‘He’s such a nice man, but he’s so boring, you have to really make a conscious effort to learn’: The views of Gemma, Daniel, and their contemporaries on teacher quality and effectiveness. Educational Review, 51(3), 231–241.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key
subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated learning and academic
achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1– 25). New York: Springer – Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual
framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self- regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3 – 24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social
cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation:
an analysis of exemplary instructional models (pp. 1–16). In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning - From teaching to self- reflective practice (pp. 225–235). New York: Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, (2nd ed., pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview
for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy
model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284–290.
232
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E.L. (1978). On the importance
of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443–446.
233
APPENDIX A:
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING INVENTORY: SUBSCALES AND ASSOCIATED DESCRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTES
Subscale A: Orientation Towards School and Learning (7 items)
• Wanting to learn as much as possible. • Believing that school achievement is important for future success. • Reliable class attendance and ready to start on time. • Tries to do best work whenever possible. • Prefers class work / tasks to be challenging. • Makes sure that any missed work is caught up. • Would not cheat.
Subscale B: Active Participation in Learning Activities (6 items)
• Gets involved and participates fully in all learning activities. • Is prepared for class by having homework completed. • Stays focussed on tasks and ignores distractions. • Reliably finishes learning tasks. • Makes the best use of class learning time. • Listens carefully when the teacher is talking to them individually, or to the group.
Subscale C: Autonomy and Control of Learning (10 items)
• Sets own learning goals and works towards them. • Carries out learning tasks by themselves without any teacher controls. • Makes own decisions about what they need to learn. • Makes own decisions about how they need to learn. • Makes own decisions about how they use class time. • Judges and assesses own work or efforts. • Controls enthusiasm and interest in learning. • Believes that the teacher should not have to force them to learn. • Accepts any harmful results of learning behaviours. • Does not make excuses when they do not achieve what they expect.
Subscale D: Initiative (6 items)
• Knows what has to be done in class. • Moves on to the next learning task without being told. • Checks anything they are not sure of. • Tries to find and correct mistakes themselves. • Arranges own revision or extension tasks. • Makes sure they are prepared for any assessment.
234
Subscale E: Management of Learning Resources (6 items) • Organises and takes care of notes and learning materials. • Finds the necessary information or resources to support learning. • Asks questions of peers when they are unsure of something. • Asks questions of teachers when they are unsure of something. • Prefers hints or clues rather than answers, when asking for help. • Asks only for the minimum amount of help needed to solve a problem.
Subscale F: Cooperation and Control of Classroom Behaviour (5 items)
• Cooperates with classmates. • Cooperates with teachers. • Reliably follows directions. • Helps to decide classroom rules and abide by them. • Contributes to the overall classroom tone (by promoting respect, consideration, support, trust,
fairness, humour).
235
APPENDIX B: RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Please Note: • Participation in this survey is totally voluntary. • All responses will be kept strictly confidential, viewed only by the researcher. • Information gathered from these surveys will be used for research purposes only. • If you have any concerns regarding the ethical conduct of this research, you or your parents should contact the Q.U.T. Human Research Ethics Committee. Secretary: Mr. Gary Allen (ph. 3864 2902 / fax 3864 1818) SCHOOL: _______________________________________________ CLASS: _________________ SUBJECT: ______________________ TEACHER: ______________________________________________ AGE: ______________________ BORN in Year: ________________ NAME: __________________________________________________ GENDER: Male Female PART A: This part of the survey asks what you think it means to be a responsible learner. INSTRUCTIONS: In the space provided write what you think it means to be a responsible learner. • Write as much as you think will make it clear what you mean.
236
NAME: _______________________________________ CLASS: ______________________ PART B:
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF RESPONSIBILTY FOR LEARNING QUESTIONNAIRE This part of the survey asks your opinion about what attitudes and behaviours you think would be shown by a responsible learner. INSTRUCTIONS: • Please read each statement carefully and respond as honestly as you can. • There are no right or wrong answers. • Please complete all the items. • If you don’t understand any of the statements please ask for help.
OPINION / AGREEMENT RATING SCALE: • Use this RATING SCALE to show how much you agree with each statement. • Circle the number that best fits your opinion. VERY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE
1 2 3 4 5 6
237
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF RESPONSIBILTY FOR LEARNING QUESTIONNAIRE VERY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN MY OPINION, RESPONSIBLE LEARNERS SHOW THEY:
1. Do not make excuses when they don’t achieve what they expect.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Want to learn as much as they can. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Get involved and participate fully in all
learning activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Know what they have to do in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Set their own learning goals and work
towards them. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Organise and take care of their notes and learning materials.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Cooperate with their classmates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Believe that achieving at school is important
for future success. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Are prepared for class by having their homework completed.
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Carry out learning tasks by themselves without any teacher controls.
1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Would not cheat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Move on to the next learning task without
being told. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Find the necessary information or resources to support learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6
14. Cooperate with their teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Reliably attend classes and are ready to start
work on time. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Stay focused on tasks and ignore distractions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Make own decisions about what they need to
learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Check anything they are not sure of. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Ask questions of their peers when they are
unsure of something. 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. Reliably follow directions. 1 2 3 4 5 6
238
VERY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN MY OPINION, RESPONSIBLE LEARNERS SHOW THEY:
21. Believe that the teacher should not have to
force them to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. Try to do their best work whenever possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Reliably finish their learning tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Try to find and correct their mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Make their own decisions about how they
need to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. Ask questions of their teachers when they are unsure of something.
1 2 3 4 5 6
27. Help to decide classroom rules and abide by them.
1 2 3 4 5 6
28. Prefer class work / tasks to be challenging. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Accept any harmful results of their learning
behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
30. Make the best use of class learning time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. Arrange their own revision or extension
tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. Prefer hints or clues rather than answers when they ask for help.
1 2 3 4 5 6
33. Make their own decisions about how they use class time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
34. Contribute to the overall classroom tone (by promoting respect, consideration, support, trust, fairness, humour).
1 2 3 4 5 6
35. Make sure that any missed work or information is caught up.
1 2 3 4 5 6
36. Listen carefully when the teacher is talking to them individually, or to the class group.
1 2 3 4 5 6
37. Judge and assess their own work or efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. Make sure that they are prepared for any
assessment. 1 2 3 4 5 6
39. Only ask for the minimum amount of help needed to solve a problem.
1 2 3 4 5 6
40. Control their enthusiasm and interest in learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6
239
NAME: _______________________________________ CLASS: ______________________ PART C:
STUDENTS’ SELF-REPORTED LEARNING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS QUESTIONNAIRE
This part of the survey asks you about how you think and behave in the classroom INSTRUCTIONS: • Please read each statement carefully and respond as honestly as you can. • Try to rate yourself as to how well the statement describes you. Don’t be worried about how you
think you should be, or what other students or teachers might think of you. • There are no right or wrong answers. • Please complete all the items. • If you don’t understand any of the statements please ask for help.
SELF-DESCRIPTION RATING SCALE: • Use the rating scale to show how true the statement is of you. • Circle the number that best fits your opinion of yourself. NEVER ALWAYS TRUE OF ME TRUE OF ME 1 2 3 4 5 6
240
STUDENTS’ SELF-REPORTED LEARNING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS QUESTIONNAIRE
NEVER ALWAYS TRUE OF ME TRUE OF ME 1 2 3 4 5 6 AS A LEARNER IN CLASS, I….
1. Do not make excuses when I don’t achieve what I expect.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Want to learn as much as I can. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Get involved and participate fully in all
learning activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Know what I have to do in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Set my own learning goals and work towards
them. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Organise and take care of my notes and learning materials.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Cooperate with my classmates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Believe that achieving at school is important
for my future success. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Am prepared for class by having my homework completed.
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Carry out learning tasks by myself without any teacher controls.
1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Would not cheat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Move on to the next learning task without
being told. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Find the necessary information or resources to support my learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6
14. Cooperate with my teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Reliably attend classes and am ready to start
work on time. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Stay focused on tasks and ignore distractions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Make my own decisions about what I need to
learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Check anything I am not sure of. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Ask questions of my peers when I am unsure
of something. 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. Reliably follow directions. 1 2 3 4 5 6
241
NEVER ALWAYS TRUE OF ME TRUE OF ME 1 2 3 4 5 6 AS A LEARNER IN CLASS, I….
21. Believe that the teacher should not have to
force me to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. Try to do my best work whenever possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Reliably finish learning tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Try to find and correct my mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Make my own decisions about how I need to
learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. Ask questions of my teachers when I am unsure of something.
1 2 3 4 5 6
27. Help to decide classroom rules and abide by them.
1 2 3 4 5 6
28. Prefer class work / tasks to be challenging. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Accept any harmful results of my learning
behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
30. Make the best use of class learning time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. Arrange my own revision or extension tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. Prefer hints or clues rather than answers
when I ask for help. 1 2 3 4 5 6
33. Make my own decisions about how I use class time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
34. Contribute to the overall classroom tone (by promoting respect, consideration, support, trust, fairness, humour).
1 2 3 4 5 6
35. Make sure that any missed work or information is caught up.
1 2 3 4 5 6
36. Listen carefully when the teacher is talking to me individually, or to the class group.
1 2 3 4 5 6
37. Judge and assess my own work or efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. Make sure that I am prepared for any
assessment. 1 2 3 4 5 6
39. Only ask for the minimum amount of help I need to solve a problem.
1 2 3 4 5 6
40. Control my enthusiasm and interest in learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6
242
APPENDIX C: Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning
Open-Ended Question Response Themes: Frequency Totals
STATEMENTS / THEMES / KEY WORDS / LEITMOTIFS STATEMENTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO CATEGORY
FREQUENCY OFRESPONSES
A. ORIENTATION TOWARDS SCHOOL AND LEARNING: 1. Positive attitude to learning / Willing (wants) to learn / Cares about their
education (learning) / Enjoys school 31
2. Wants to succeed (improve) in life (education / work) / Recognises importance of responsibility in learning / Takes advantage of education (opportunities) provided / Interested in subject / School -only for those who want to learn
13
3. Punctual / On time for class 6 4. Does (tries) their best / Aims towards highest standards / Takes on
challenges / Takes pride (time / neatness) in their work / Not complain at hard work / Accepts education pressures
47
5. Catches up missed work 3 6. Not cheat / Persistent / Not give up 4 CATEGORY TOTALS 104
B. ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING ACTIVITIES 7. Participates (actively) / Involved in(willingly responds to) learning tasks
/ Applies themselves / Attempts everything / Works hard (maximum effort) / Learns / Thinks (uses brain / intellect) / Studies (regularly / in own time) / Good study habits / Involved in extra-curricular activities
55
8. Prepared for class (for learning) (inc materials / homework) 17 9. Not distracted 5
10. Finishes learning tasks / Does work (assignments) on time / Does work quickly / Follows through / Does not complain / Produces good standard / Works sensibly (properly)
48
11. Uses time effectively (good time management) 5 12. Listens (pays attention) to the teacher (speaker) 89
CATEGORY TOTALS 219 C. AUTONOMY AND CONTROL OF LEARNING 13. Works towards own goals / Wants to achieve their goals (School / Life)
/ Does best to achieve what they want / Sets priorities (balanced) 3
14. Works independently / Works by themselves / Learns by themselves / Thinks for themselves
10
15. Takes control (in charge) of learning / Recognises learning (future) is in own hands / Acknowledges ownership (initiative) for education progress (success)
16
16. Responsible for how much is learnt / Learns at own pace 2 17. Knows self and own learning / Knows what extra work is needed 2 18. Motivated / Dedicated / Focused 5 19. Believes teacher should not force student to learn 2 20. Accountability / Takes ownership of results / Takes responsibility for
actions (inc. mistakes) / Accepts blame for actions (inc. failures) / Faces consequences / Not blame teacher
19
CATEGORY TOTALS 59
243
STATEMENTS / THEMES / KEY WORDS / LEITMOTIFS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THEMATIC CATEGORY
FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES
D. INITIATIVE 21. Knows what to do / Takes initiative / Makes learning happen 4 22. Works without teacher controls (instructions / reminders) 15 23. Checks their work (facts) / Ensures their understanding 6 24. Takes initiative for study in own time (revision / extra work / research) 12 25. Prepares for tests 1
CATEGORY TOTALS 38 E. MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING RESOURCES 26. Organised / Takes care of work / Takes care of property 17 27. Takes reliable notes 2 28. Seeks help / Asks questions 8
CATEGORY TOTALS 27 F. COOPERATION and CONTROL of CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR 29. Respects others / Considerate of others / Caring / Gets along /
Understands others / Helps others / Not hurt others / Not fighting / Contribute to friendly atmosphere
42
30. Cooperates with others – Teachers / Peers 12 31. Follows instructions 9 32. Obeys classroom rules / Not disrupt (distract) others / Allows others to
learn 25
33. Well behaved / Does the right thing / Sensible / Not muck around (silly / stupid) / Knows when to be serious
48
34. Well mannered / Not talk at wrong time / Not interrupt teacher / Does not argue / Not rude (smart) to teacher
30
35. Trustworthy / Honest / Reliable 35 CATEGORY TOTALS 201
G. GENERAL OR NON-SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES 36. Mature / Takes life (work) seriously / Sets good example 14 37. Responsible for themselves 3 38. Takes ownership / Takes responsibility for work / Sees responsibility as
duty 6
39. Thinks about actions / Makes right decisions 4 40. Listens to parents 1 41. Achieves / Does well / Good at learning / Smart (clever) / Understands /
Remembers things / Handles difficult problems 22
42. Not necessarily the smartest 3 43. Personal attributes: inc.
Confident / Outgoing / Individual / Independent / Loyal 5
CATEGORY TOTALS 58 H. IMPRECISE / UNUSABLE RESPONSES 1. Be responsible in (for) learning 6 2. Irrelevant 1 3. Unreadable 3 4. Unanswered 3 CATEGORY TOTALS 13 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSE THEMES 706
244
APPENDIX D:
Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Item Responses: Descriptive Data, Rank Order, and Associated Subscale
RANK ITEM MEAN S. D. SUBSCALE
1. Believes school important – future success 5.43 0.98 Orientation 2. Tries to do their best work 5.31 0.98 Orientation 3. Reliably follows directions 5.29 0.96 Cooperation 4. Reliable attendance / Ready to start class 5.29 0.99 Orientation 5. Wants to learn as much as possible 5.28 0.93 Orientation 6. Listens carefully to the teacher 5.27 0.98 Participation 7. Asks questions of teachers when unsure 5.27 1.01 Resources 8. Would not cheat 5.24 1.26 Orientation 9. Reliably completes set tasks 5.21 0.97 Participation 10. Prepared for assessment 5.20 1.09 Initiative 11. Involvement / participate fully - L activities 5.19 0.96 Participation 12. Checks anything when unsure 5.18 0.97 Initiative 13. Attempts to find / correct mistakes 5.18 0.97 Initiative 14. Contributes to overall classroom tone 5.18 1.00 Cooperation 15. Cooperates with teachers 5.17 1.11 Cooperation 16. Makes best use of class learning time 5.16 1.02 Participation 17. Knows what to do in class 5.15 0.96 Initiative 18. Prepared for class / Homework completed 5.15 1.13 Participation 19. Takes care of their learning materials 5.14 1.00 Resources 20. Sets own learning goals 5.09 1.02 Autonomy 21. Makes own decisions – use class time 5.09 1.08 Autonomy 22. Cooperates with classmates 5.09 1.17 Cooperation 23. Ensures any missed work / info is caught up 5.07 1.20 Orientation 24. Finds necessary information / resources 5.04 0.97 Resources 25. Judge or assess own work / efforts 5.03 1.05 Autonomy 26. Stay focused on tasks / Ignores distractions 5.03 1.07 Participation 27. Self-control of motivation / enthusiasm 4.99 1.17 Autonomy 28. Accepts any harmful results of L behaviours 4.96 1.19 Autonomy 29. Carry out L tasks without teacher controls 4.92 1.08 Autonomy 30. Helps decide / abide by classroom rules 4.92 1.21 Cooperation 31. Makes own decisions – how need to learn 4.91 1.20 Autonomy
32. Moves on to next L task without being told 4.91 1.22 Initiative 33. Prefers hints / clues rather than answers 4.90 1.36 Resources 34. Makes own decisions – what need to learn 4.89 1.22 Autonomy 35. Asks questions of peers when unsure 4.88 1.23 Resources 36. Sets own revision or extension tasks 4.83 1.32 Initiative 37. Believes teacher should not need to force 4.82 1.53 Autonomy 38. Does not make excuses for learning results 4.81 1.13 Autonomy 39. Asks for the minimum amount of help 4.78 1.32 Resources 40. Prefers class work / tasks to be challenging 4.77 1.29 Orientation
245
APPENDIX E:
Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Item Responses: Descriptive Data, Rank Order, and Associated Subscale
RANK ITEM MEAN S. D. SUBSCALE
1. Believe school important – future success 5.28 1.08 Orientation 2. Cooperate with classmates 4.90 1.03 Cooperation 3. Tries to do my best work 4.88 1.09 Orientation 4. Cooperate with teachers 4.86 1.19 Cooperation 5. Want to learn as much as possible 4.81 1.00 Orientation 6. Reliable attendance / Ready to start class 4.80 1.13 Orientation 7. Ask questions of peers when unsure 4.75 1.12 Resources 8. Asks questions of teachers when unsure 4.75 1.17 Resources 9. Believe - teacher should not need to force 4.75 1.40 Autonomy 10. Listen carefully to the teacher 4.71 1.03 Participation 11. Involved / participate fully – L activities 4.69 1.06 Participation 12. Reliably follows directions 4.69 1.11 Cooperation 13. Contribute to overall classroom tone 4.66 1.19 Cooperation 14. Would not cheat 4.66 1.41 Orientation 15. Know what to do in class 4.64 0.91 Initiative 16. Reliably complete set tasks 4.64 0.96 Participation 17. Make own decisions – how need to learn 4.63 1.02 Autonomy 18. Prepared for assessment 4.61 1.18 Initiative 19. Attempt to find / correct mistakes 4.56 1.12 Initiative 20. Make own decisions – use class time 4.53 1.14 Autonomy 21. Make own decisions – what need to learn 4.52 1.11 Autonomy 22. Checks anything when unsure 4.52 1.15 Initiative 23. Self-control of motivation / enthusiasm 4.51 1.17 Autonomy 24. Accept any harmful results of L behaviours 4.51 1.29 Autonomy 25. Judge or assess own work / efforts 4.49 1.12 Autonomy 26. Find necessary information / resources 4.44 1.06 Resources 27. Set own learning goals 4.35 1.21 Autonomy 28. Move on to next L task without being told 4.34 1.18 Initiative 29. Take care of their learning materials 4.34 1.30 Resources 30. Makes best use of class learning time 4.32 1.18 Participation 31. Help decide / abide by classroom rules 4.28 1.28 Cooperation 32. Prepared for class / Homework completed 4.26 1.35 Participation 33. Ask for the minimum amount of help 4.24 1.26 Resources 34. Prefer hints / clues rather than answers 4.24 1.45 Resources 35. Carry out L tasks without teacher controls 4.21 1.10 Autonomy 36. Prefer class work / tasks to be challenging 4.17 1.33 Orientation 37. Ensure any missed work / info is caught up 4.16 1.31 Orientation 38. Do not make excuses for learning results 4.10 1.23 Autonomy 39. Stay focused on tasks / Ignore distractions 3.85 1.25 Participation 40. Set own revision or extension tasks 3.82 1.44 Initiative
246
APPENDIX F: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire (SURLQ) Subscale A: ORIENTATION TOWARDS SCHOOL AND LEARNING
YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.68 0.44 Females 5.06 0.76 Males 5.40 0.70 Males 4.87 0.74
Year Total 5.53 0.60 Year Total 4.97 0.75 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 5.12 0.84 Females 5.30 0.70 Males 5.08 0.65 Males 4.97 1.11
Year Total 5.10 0.74 Year Total 5.21 0.85
Subscale Totals
All Females 5.29 0.73 All Males 5.10 0.80 All Year Levels 5.21 0.77
Subscale B: ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING ACTIVITIES
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.66 0.41 Females 4.98 0.79 Males 5.38 0.67 Males 4.68 0.89
Year Total 5.51 0.57 Year Total 4.83 0.85 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 5.22 0.71 Females 5.24 0.67 Males 5.10 0.71 Males 5.05 0.94
Year Total 5.16 0.71 Year Total 5.18 0.76
Subscale Totals
All Females 5.27 0.69 All Males 5.07 0.82 All Year Levels 5.18 0.76
247
APPENDIX F: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire (SURLQ) Subscale C: AUTONOMY AND CONTROL OF LEARNING
YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.56 0.51 Females 4.69 0.70 Males 5.16 0.84 Males 4.59 0.55
Year Total 5.35 0.73 Year Total 4.64 0.63 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 5.00 0.62 Females 4.97 0.69 Males 4.77 0.73 Males 4.84 0.87
Year Total 4.88 0.69 Year Total 4.93 0.74
Subscale Totals
All Females 5.04 0.70 All Males 4.85 0.78 All Year Levels 4.96 0.74
Subscale D: INITIATIVE
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.66 0.40 Females 4.85 0.72 Males 5.31 0.70 Males 4.73 0.81
Year Total 5.47 0.60 Year Total 4.70 0.76 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.97 0.75 Females 5.19 0.69 Males 4.97 0.72 Males 4.75 1.18
Year Total 4.97 0.73 Year Total 5.06 0.87
Subscale Totals
All Females 5.17 0.71 All Males 4.97 0.86 All Year Levels 5.08 0.79
248
APPENDIX F: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The Students’ Understandings of Responsibility For Learning Questionnaire (SURLQ) Subscale E: MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING RESOURCES
YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.63 0.53 Females 4.53 0.83 Males 5.28 0.58 Males 4.71 0.71
Year Total 5.44 0.58 Year Total 4.62 0.77 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.96 0.72 Females 5.03 0.67 Males 4.96 0.72 Males 4.83 1.06
Year Total 4.96 0.72 Year Total 4.97 0.80
Subscale Totals
All Females 5.04 0.77 All Males 4.97 0.77 All Year Levels 5.01 0.77
Subscale F: COOPERATION AND CONTROL OF CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.76 0.27 Females 4.95 0.83 Males 5.38 0.76 Males 4.70 0.92
Year Total 5.56 0.61 Year Total 4.83 0.87 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 5.19 0.76 Females 5.12 0.75 Males 5.02 0.68 Males 4.84 1.01
Year Total 5.10 0.72 Year Total 5.04 0.84
Subscale Totals
All Females 5.24 0.75 All Males 5.01 0.86 All Year Levels 5.14 0.81
249
APPENDIX G:
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS The Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (SRLABQ)
Subscale A: ORIENTATION TOWARDS SCHOOL AND LEARNING
YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.23 0.52 Females 4.24 0.78 Males 5.04 0.67 Males 4.30 0.98
Year Total 5.13 0.61 Year Total 4.27 0.88 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.65 0.77 Females 4.72 0.70 Males 4.57 0.65 Males 4.58 0.91
Year Total 4.60 0.70 Year Total 4.68 0.77
Subscale Totals
All Females 4.71 0.77 All Males 4.63 0.84 All Year Levels 4.67 0.80
Subscale B: ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING ACTIVITIES
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
Year 5: Year 9:
Females 4.90 0.92 Females 4.13 0.81 Males 4.91 0.64 Males 4.83 0.93
Year Total 4.90 0.78 Year Total 4.20 0.87 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.47 0.68 Females 4.26 0.67 Males 4.27 0.73 Males 4.06 1.07
Year Total 4.36 0.71 Year Total 4.19 0.82
Subscale Totals
All Females 4.40 0.80 All Males 4.40 0.89 All Year Levels 4.40 0.84
250
APPENDIX G: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (SRLABQ) Subscale C: AUTONOMY AND CONTROL OF LEARNING
YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.00 0.68 Females 4.00 0.60 Males 4.95 0.63 Males 4.10 0.71
Year Total 4.97 0.65 Year Total 4.04 0.65 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.61 0.62 Females 4.40 0.60 Males 4.31 0.64 Males 4.31 0.86
Year Total 4.45 0.64 Year Total 4.37 0.69
Subscale Totals
All Females 4.48 0.71 All Males 4.43 0.77 All Year Levels 4.45 0.73
Subscale D: INITIATIVE
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.01 0.54 Females 3.99 0.82 Males 4.87 0.63 Males 4.10 0.85
Year Total 4.93 0.59 Year Total 4.05 0.83 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.48 0.67 Females 4.45 0.67 Males 4.26 0.72 Males 4.08 0.94
Year Total 4.36 0.70 Year Total 4.33 0.78
Subscale Totals
All Females 4.47 0.75 All Males 4.35 0.84 All Year Levels 4.41 0.79
251
APPENDIX G: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The Students’ Self-Reported Learning Attitudes and Behaviours Questionnaire (SRLABQ) Subscale E: MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING RESOURCES
YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. YEAR
LEVEL
MEAN
S.D. Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.09 0.70 Females 4.16 0.76 Males 5.05 0.57 Males 3.97 0.95
Year Total 5.07 0.63 Year Total 4.07 0.86 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.46 0.84 Females 4.43 0.65 Males 4.30 0.61 Males 4.15 0.91
Year Total 4.37 0.73 Year Total 4.34 0.75
Subscale Totals
All Females 4.51 0.79 All Males 4.39 0.86 All Year Levels 4.46 0.83
Subscale F: COOPERATION AND CONTROL OF CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
YEAR LEVEL
MEAN
S.D.
Year 5: Year 9:
Females 5.16 1.02 Females 4.31 0.93 Males 5.21 0.56 Males 4.40 0.86
Year Total 5.19 0.81 Year Total 4.35 0.89 Year 7: Year 11:
Females 4.70 0.94 Females 4.76 0.63 Males 4.32 0.81 Males 4.46 0.93
Year Total 4.49 0.89 Year Total 4.66 0.75
Subscale Totals
All Females 4.73 0.89 All Males 4.60 0.87 All Year Levels 4.67 0.88
252
253
“Learning to be responsible for your own learning is, more or less, the most vital thing you should be learning. If you don’t exactly care about your study –
what they hell are you doing at school?”
Shannon (2003) Year 11 student
Beerwah State High School
“What I really don’t like, is that they’re always saying that they want us to be “responsible students,
yet they don’t give us any responsibility.”
Jade (2005) Year 9 student
Narangba State High School
254