Transition to university - a self-regulatory approach
Allan Doring Bob Bingham Ann Bramwell-Vial
Introduction
Transition to university is increasingly problematic often requiring
significant social and academic adjustments by students (McInnis and
James, 1995; Burroughs-Lane, 1996 and Trindle, 1996). With expanding
university enrolments and increased diversity of student background and
preparedness for university, this problem appears exacerbated.
Success in terms of academic achievement in a university environment is
strongly linked to the degree of and success in the adoption of
appropriate learning strategies that the effective learner is capable
of achieving (Lindner and Harris, 1992; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons, 1986, Bandura, 1982, Schunk, 1984, 1993). For some
students, this may require a change to particular aspects of learning
behaviours that they previously found successful. For them, the
transition process becomes critical.
Prior to entering university, students, particularly recent
school-leavers, will have a history of learning which may involve a
significant degree of external environmental guidance and support
particularly from parents and teachers (Glasser, 1996:305). This
guidance and support is likely to include external controls, external
motivation, goal setting, set activities and precise expectations.
These external influences, together with each student’s internalised
view of their own competence, will be evident in a range of academic
behaviours, learning strategies and goal orientations. While some are
likely to be aware of the overt and covert differences between their
previous learning environment and university and acknowledge that
difference may warrant changes in their learning behaviour, others may
not. It is these students that are more likely to be at risk and
therefore needing particular assistance if they are to be successful in
their university studies.
Awareness of the different demands does not necessarily indicate a
preparedness to make changes of the required nature to cope with the
autonomy and independence in relation to the learning process
(Cuthbert, 1995; Boud, 1988).
In addition to a set of beliefs and goals underlying their
about-to-begin university study career, students entering university
also bring diverse levels of skills. Over time, these beliefs and
skills have evolved through the triadic reciprocal determinism of three
influencing processes: person (self), behaviour and environment
(Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman, 1989). While an individual’s personal,
behavioural and environmental events can be viewed as separable, they
are interdependent sources of influence in analyses of human behaviour
(Zimmerman, 1990a:181). It is this interdependence of influences that
must be kept in mind when examining the issue of student learning
behaviour.
Transition
Enrolment in university study is not simple. For the school-leaver, the
path through such competing demands previously may have been lessened
through the influence of school and home. As a young adult, he or she
is probably expected to take considerably more responsibility for
themselves and their actions.
As recorded in various studies (i.e. Blunden, 1996; Trindle, 1996),
students beginning university study are likely to experience a wide
range of problems ranging from confusion about self and institutional
organisation, the need for greater autonomy, the emergent tension
between their expectations (which might be vague, contradictory) and
the university’s expectations, which are usually very precise, formal
and imposed impersonally. As they try to desperately adjust, many are
reluctant to make the effort to check, clarify or reduce the gaps in
their knowledge and understanding.
To date, universities have generally seen their role in the transition
process as interventionist. If and when learning difficulties are
experienced or acknowledged, students are encouraged, or even left to
their own devices, to identify their weaknesses and seek assistance or
remediation from the university sponsored study skill centre or
equivalent. Anecdotal comments suggest that often such centres attract
the students least likely to need assistance whereas the student
needing help, rarely takes the opportunity. Such centres are often
sources of coping techniques and low level support, for example, study
skills, rather than a source of developing processes to meet the
demands associated with student university life. In this regard, these
centres could be seen as defacto support systems.
The transition to university process is characteristised by a decrease
in previous environmental supports. There is an increased expectation
to become an autonomous and independent learner (Boud, 1990). The
initial intention and purpose of students beginning their university
courses, is to complete a degree. As they become aware of the inherent
pressures associated with university study, including competing demands
of meeting academic requirements, a desire for a social life and the
need for part-time work, a more immediate goal might become the
successful completion of a semester’s work, that is, to do the minimum
work to gain a pass. To attain even this goal, a higher level of self
organisation and discipline is required to even identify priorities and
attain weekly goals. This may require the rapid development of
appropriate practice, self-monitoring, improved self-regulatory skills
and the identification and discrimination of standards and criteria for
achieving acceptable levels of performance (Glasser, 1996:305).
As they recognise changing demands for new situations, there is an
impetus for the student to adopt new behaviour or change personal
aspects of their present. Of particular interest here is the student
who, during the transition phase, becomes aware of the need to change
their approach to learning, particularly in terms of the goals they
set. The need to possibly redefine their goals is seen as a critical
aspect of learning behaviour change. It is in this regard that the
self-regulation literature has something to offer.
Self-regulation
The literature on self-regulation implies that it is during the
transitional process beginning after initial entry, that the university
student who is an effective self-regulated learner is more likely to
make any successful or necessary adjustments to his or her learning
processes (Zimmerman & Pons, 1986; Schunk, 1993).
Self regulation theory focuses attention on how students personally
activate, alter and sustain their learning practices in specific
contexts (Zimmerman, 1986:307). This perspective has directed attention
to students’ use of a variety of specific sub-processes to achieve
self-designated goals in a real world context. However, there appears a
dearth of application to the neophyte university student. While there
is a growing body of applied research on the relationship between
self-regulated learning processes and student academic achievement
(Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1984), this particular group appears to have
been largely ignored.
Self-regulatory students use learning processes involving goal-directed
activities that investigate, modify and sustain their performance
(Zimmerman, 1989). These activities include attending to instruction,
processing and integrating knowledge, rehearsing information to be
remembered, and developing and maintaining positive beliefs about
learning capabilities and anticipated outcomes of actions (Schunk,
1989, 1990). The literature on self-regulated learning (i.e. Zimmerman,
1990b; Lindher & Harris, 1992) indicates that self-regulated learners
understand, value and engage in academic learning in ways that are
fundamentally different that their peers who have difficulty .
Social cognitive learning theory framework generally views
self-regulation as comprising three sub-processes: self-observation,
self-judgement and self-reaction (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1989). As
students undertake learning tasks with particular goals, they observe
their performances, evaluate or judge their goal progress. As an
outcome of this self-monitoring, they continue their work or change
their task approach (Schunk, 1990:72). It is accepted that satisfactory
self-regulation will not only assist the transition process but also
enhance feeling of efficacy thus leading to higher levels of
achievement and motivation.
During this phase, as they self-monitor their transition, students not
adjusting may need to move beyond their present level of awareness of
themselves as learners. They may also need to recognise the changing
situation and examine the kinds of processes that they have previously
utilised in their learning. Until this self-judgment and self-reaction
are recognised and identified, a commitment to changing their
self-regulation skills, which in turn affects their goal achievement
and self-efficacy, might not be attempted.
Goal setting
Observation suggests that students’ ability to self-regulate through
setting appropriate individual goals to meet external goals and demands
varies greatly. Not only does the degree of self-regulation vary
greatly but also, already fragile self-efficacy is lowered further
through inability to adopt the best tactics and strategies to cope with
these demands. It is important to understand self-regulatory processes
to assist students’ to change their learning strategies while
increasing their motivation to do so (Zimmerman and Pons, 1986).
Deliberately teaching for effective goal setting and self-regulated
learning seems a valid objective for value added education early in
university studies. Numerous studies, (i.e., Schunk, 1984; Bandura and
Schunk, 1981), examine how self-regulated learning processes affect
academic beliefs, skills and behaviours.
Goal setting, goal specificity, goal proximity, goal difficulty and
goal progress feedback have been associated with self-regulated
learning (Schunk, 1990, 1993, Bandura and Schunk, 1981). It is
believed that if inappropriate goals are set, then other components of
the self-regulation are likely to become inefficient. The application
of inappropriate tactics and strategies is likely to hinder rather than
help goal attainment as well as incur other effects. For example,
self-efficacy is only likely to increase as students note progress,
attain goals and set new challenges (Schunk, 1990:81).
If the transition process to university is to be successful, the
student will need to utilise appropriate tactics and strategies to meet
changing goals, especially those imposed by the university. Those high
in self-efficacy and confident in their ability to self-regulate, will,
through observation, judgement and reaction, monitor their own
performance and make adjustments.
Implications
For many students, the transition process is frequently left to fate.
A Sink or swim mentality attempts to force a situation that is often
personally and economically wasteful without addressing the real issues
and responsibility. Even for the student who is able to adjust, any
change process is by default and thus may be extremely inefficient both
for the individual student and their learning behaviour.
To date, universities’ concerns with student difficulties appear to
have seen several interventions invoked, particularly through the
establishment of study skill centres, optional intensive workshops and
availability of counselling services. As mentioned earlier, experience
suggests that the students most in need of such assistance are also
those least likely to approach and utilise the opportunity. The
question arises as to whether universities are or should be, prepared
to teach and encourage appropriate learning behaviour among their
commencing students or over the duration of their degree.
Current intervention approaches within universities are often limited
in focus and duration as well as suffering the shortcomings referred to
above. Where attempts have been made, the work of one section, e.g.
the study centres, is often not integrated with the unit teaching. On
the basis of the points raised in this paper, it is argued that there
is a real need to integrate and embed self-regulation skills in
academic units rather than as stand alone courses. Of course this then
puts added responsibility on the part of university teaching staff to
provide understanding and practice in areas such as strategies, tactics
and techniques, that is, they have to teach for changes in thinking,
behaviour and content knowledge.
In summary, the underlying issue appears to be one of balancing
individual and institutional responsibility. Should there be in-unit
assistance, that is, transition skills, embedded in each units,
particularly those with high first year student enrolment ? A second
and allied question refers to what is the likely value of the tasks
already embedded in units that will help transition ? Can and should
academic staff teach skills of independent learning in order to
deliberately change learning styles and hence increase the likelihood
of student success and retention?
References
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence,
self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.
Boud, D. (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. London: Kogan
Page.
Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values.
Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101-111.
Blunden, R. (1996). Academic loyalties and professional disobedience.
Higher Education Research and Development, 15(1), 13-28.
Burroughs-Lane, S. (1996).University lecturers’ concept of their role.
Higher Education Research and Development, 15(1), 29-49.
Cuthbert, K. (1995). Project planning and the promotion of
self-regulated learning: From theory to practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 20(3), 267-277.
Glasser, R. (1996). Changing the agency for learning: Acquiring expert
performance. In Ericsson, K.A. (Ed.) The road to excellence: The
acquisition of expert performance in the Arts & Sciences, Sports and
Games. Lawrence Earlbaum Assoc: Mahwah, New Jersey.
Lindner, R. W. & Harris, B. (1992). Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement in college students Paper presented at the annual
convention, American Educational Research Association, April.
McInnis, C. & James, R. (1995). Diversity in the initial experiences of
Australian undergraduates. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher
Education, University of Melbourne.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspectives on achievement
behaviour. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviours.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-208.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during
self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
Schunk, D. H. (1993). Enhancing strategy use: Influences of strategy
value and goal orientation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, April.
Trindle, E. (1996). On becoming an undergraduate: Transition to
university. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Student Services
Association, 7, 3-22.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are
the key sub-processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11,
307-313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated
academic learning Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990a). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990b). Self-regulating academic learning and
achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective.
Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173-201.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a
structured interview for assessing students’ use of self-regulated
learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
614-628.
E-mail contact details:
A.Doring@mcauley.acu.edu.au
B.Bingham@mcauley.acu.edu.au
A.Bramwell-Vial@mcauley.acu.edu.au