Most teacher–student regulation combinations produce friction rather than congruence, with constructive and destructive forms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1999 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the three-by-three interplay of teacher- and student-regulation levels, six of nine cells represent friction between teaching and learning, some destructive and some constructive. → Jan D. Vermunt 1999

Evidence¶

Jan D. Vermunt 1999¶

Jan D. Vermunt, Nico Verloop. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 9, 257–280. http://hdl.handle.net/1874/18753

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Theoretical analysis presented with Table 4, which cross-tabulates three degrees of teacher-regulation (strong, shared, loose) with three degrees of student-regulation (high, intermediate, low). Congruence holds on one diagonal; the article states "six out of nine, represent friction between teaching and learning".

"The majority of cells, six out of nine, represent friction between teaching and learning. Some of these are destructive in nature, for example when students that are well capable of self-regulated learning have a teacher who prescribes the way they should learn in detail."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teachers' SRL&T module scores improved modestly over the year, with Adam improving more (three to six points) than Ben (five to six) — related
• In the meeting, coordination was the most common type of interaction and communication the rarest, indicating reconceptualizing the script was very challenging — related