Skip to main content
placeholder image

Diagnosis of self-regulated learning profiles

Journal Article


Abstract


  • We have prefaced this practice-oriented

    contribution with the above quotation from

    Calvin Coolidge that contains an ominous

    challenge to the promotion of giftedness: that

    even the best natural talent and good upbringing

    together can attain nothing if the gifted

    individuals themselves do not persistently and

    competently hone their efforts towards achieving

    exceptional learning goals. The giftedness

    research of recent years has increasingly put

    forward a quite similar assessment (Ziegler,

    2009).

    Giftedness researchers point to the fact that the

    ideal pedagogic learning setting consists of

    exactly one professional educator and one

    recipient (Bloom, 1984) and that, in such

    conditions, exceptional performances are

    possible (Bloom, 1985a, 1985b), but realistically,

    this learning constellation cannot become the

    norm in practice. There are not enough

    educators, mentors, teachers and others to

    constantly surround and support each gifted

    learner. Even parents, closest to the gifted

    learner, cannot be expected to sustain such a

    support effort. Besides, as a rule they do not

    have — in contrast to the professional educators

    of this ideal setting — the necessary pedagogical

    training. How much then can we actually save

    from the ideal vision of a totally professional and

    individualised promotion of exceptional

    achievement?

    A fundamental possibility is the approach of

    ‘self-regulated learning’, in which gifted learners

    act equally in the roles of transmitter and

    recipient of learning measures. On the one hand

    such an approach can solve the human resource

    problem, if trivially, since learner and teacher

    are always present and available. On the other

    hand, however, the gifted learner is evidently

    only an amateur in the matter of learning and its

    supervision. And this is the crucial question: At

    what point can the responsibility for the learning

    process be passed on to individual learners, so

    that they can take charge of it just as

    competently as a professional pedagogue? This

    question touches on two problems. The first is

    diagnosing the level of competence for selfregulated

    learning, and the second is the

    classification of the diagnosis results for the

    purpose of activating the various support

    measures.

Authors


  •   Ziegler, Albert (external author)
  •   Stoeger, Heidrun (external author)
  •   Vialle, Wilma J.
  •   Wimmer, Bastian (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., Vialle, W. & Wimmer, B. (2012). Diagnosis of self-regulated learning profiles. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21 (2), 62-74.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84903719003

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/14

Number Of Pages


  • 12

Start Page


  • 62

End Page


  • 74

Volume


  • 21

Issue


  • 2

Abstract


  • We have prefaced this practice-oriented

    contribution with the above quotation from

    Calvin Coolidge that contains an ominous

    challenge to the promotion of giftedness: that

    even the best natural talent and good upbringing

    together can attain nothing if the gifted

    individuals themselves do not persistently and

    competently hone their efforts towards achieving

    exceptional learning goals. The giftedness

    research of recent years has increasingly put

    forward a quite similar assessment (Ziegler,

    2009).

    Giftedness researchers point to the fact that the

    ideal pedagogic learning setting consists of

    exactly one professional educator and one

    recipient (Bloom, 1984) and that, in such

    conditions, exceptional performances are

    possible (Bloom, 1985a, 1985b), but realistically,

    this learning constellation cannot become the

    norm in practice. There are not enough

    educators, mentors, teachers and others to

    constantly surround and support each gifted

    learner. Even parents, closest to the gifted

    learner, cannot be expected to sustain such a

    support effort. Besides, as a rule they do not

    have — in contrast to the professional educators

    of this ideal setting — the necessary pedagogical

    training. How much then can we actually save

    from the ideal vision of a totally professional and

    individualised promotion of exceptional

    achievement?

    A fundamental possibility is the approach of

    ‘self-regulated learning’, in which gifted learners

    act equally in the roles of transmitter and

    recipient of learning measures. On the one hand

    such an approach can solve the human resource

    problem, if trivially, since learner and teacher

    are always present and available. On the other

    hand, however, the gifted learner is evidently

    only an amateur in the matter of learning and its

    supervision. And this is the crucial question: At

    what point can the responsibility for the learning

    process be passed on to individual learners, so

    that they can take charge of it just as

    competently as a professional pedagogue? This

    question touches on two problems. The first is

    diagnosing the level of competence for selfregulated

    learning, and the second is the

    classification of the diagnosis results for the

    purpose of activating the various support

    measures.

Authors


  •   Ziegler, Albert (external author)
  •   Stoeger, Heidrun (external author)
  •   Vialle, Wilma J.
  •   Wimmer, Bastian (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., Vialle, W. & Wimmer, B. (2012). Diagnosis of self-regulated learning profiles. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21 (2), 62-74.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84903719003

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/14

Number Of Pages


  • 12

Start Page


  • 62

End Page


  • 74

Volume


  • 21

Issue


  • 2