Facilitating Lifelong Learning in School-Age ... - Hogrefe eContent

Original Articles and Reviews

Facilitating Lifelong Learning in School-Age Learners Programs and Recommendations Barbara Schober,1 Marko Lüftenegger,1 Petra Wagner,2 Monika Finsterwald,1 and Christiane Spiel1 1

University of Vienna, Austria, 2Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences, Linz, Austria Abstract. Lifelong Learning (LLL) has been proclaimed a Europe-wide strategy as societies are faced with numerous changes making continuous development indispensable. Currently, LLL is often seen primarily as a topic for continuing education. However, schools play an essential role in laying the cornerstone for successful LLL: There is robust knowledge that persistent motivation to learn as well as corresponding learning skills are essential for LLL and that both could be influenced best during childhood and adolescence. Therefore, facilitating LLL is an important aspect of schools’ success. However, results from international studies show deficits for many students in LLL competencies. Consequently, a need for more systematic promotion of LLL in schools was identified. Based on this, the aim of this paper is to give an overview on the theoretical basis for promoting LLL in schools from the perspective of educational psychology. Derived from this, the necessity of enhancing LLL competencies in school is made obvious and present promotion programs are described. As an example, goals, structure, and evaluation results of the TALK training program, which aims to provide teachers with the competencies to systematically implement the enhancement of LLL into their regular educational responsibilities, are reported. Finally, general recommendations for realizing a systematic facilitation of LLL in school are illustrated. Keywords: lifelong learning, enhancement of motivation and self-regulation, teacher training

School-age students’ interest in learning in school decreases with advanced school grades. This distressing result has been reported in a variety of international literature (e.g., Fischer & Rustemeyer, 2007; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Lftenegger et al., 2012; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006). Beyond this developmental aspect, with regard to the level of motivation, several studies have identified fundamental motivational problems and deficits among students (OECD, 2004; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008), and a substantial proportion are convinced, after only a few years in school, that their abilities are largely stable and not subject to own influences (Dresel, 2001; Dweck, 2002). This stable perception of one’s own abilities is considered to be fatal for commitment in learning and achievement contexts as well as for the ability to cope with failure (Dweck & Molden, 2005). Nevertheless, many students invest a lot of time in schoolwork, but this is often due to high test anxiety and European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125 DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000129

low self-efficacy (e.g., Spiel, Wagner, & Fellner, 2002). Hence the question as how to encourage students’ motivation for learning is not new, as far as motivation is clearly considered as highly relevant for performance and school success (Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). However, the topic has gained a new facet and increased importance as European societies have become faced with numerous economic and social changes. Permanent learning in the sense of expanding one’s competencies is therefore indispensable. As a result ‘‘Lifelong Learning’’ (LLL) has been proclaimed a Europe-wide strategy, especially for schools and universities (Commission of the European Communities, 2000). And even if LLL often is seen as primarily a topic for further education (Cendon et al., 2007), school is considered to lay the cornerstones for preparing students for LLL (Commission of the European Communities, 2007; Lipowsky, 2004; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). However, considering the difficult motivational situation detected for a large proportion of students as depicted 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

B. Schober et al.: Facilitating Lifelong Learning in School-Age Learners

above, there is a clear need for a more systematic promotion of LLL in European schools. Even if several approaches and attempts to realize a LLL strategy in school (e.g., Achtenhagen & Lempert, 2000) can already be found, they mostly show conceptual deficits, have a very restricted focus, and turn out to be short term. In light of this, it is the aim of this paper to (1) theoretically specify the competencies for successful LLL from the perspective of educational psychology. Based on this, the necessity of enhancing these competencies in school will (2) be made obvious and (3) present promotion programs will be described. Finally, (4) recommendations for realizing a systematic facilitation of LLL in school will be illustrated. In sum, it will become obvious that teachers are a decisive starting point for an improvement in this field as they are the proximate actors for redesigning school environment.

LLL as a Construct – Competencies to Be Promoted in School LLL in its origins is a matter of social and educational policy. Presently, from the perspective of scientific investigation, one cannot identify a coherent definition of sufficient substance on this topic (Achtenhagen & Lempert, 2000; Schober et al., 2007). Existing definitions of LLL are mostly initiated by educational policy task forces of the European Union and remain on general levels: LLL is defined as ‘‘all purposeful learning activity, undertaken on an ongoing basis with the aim of improving knowledge, skills, and competence’’ (Commission of the European Communities, 2000, p. 3), or as ‘‘all learning activities undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills, and competence within a personal, civic, social, and/or employment-related perspective’’ (European Commission, 2001, p. 9). Additionally, one also finds slightly differing enumerations of key competencies (such as languages, IT competencies, skills for self-organization, interpersonal skills, etc.; European Parliament, 2006). Facilitating LLL is not only a European topic, there seems to be a worldwide increase of consciousness for new competence demands of our knowledge society, as, for example, the often-cited American framework of ‘‘21st Century Skills’’ (e.g., Trilling & Fadel, 2009) makes obvious. These skills are very similar to those mentioned in the European papers on lifelong learning and specify competencies necessary for succeeding in work and life. In detail, learning and innovation skills (like creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration), information, media, and technology skills (like information literacy and media literacy) are postulated combined with life and career skills (like flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills). In light of this, from a scientific perspective, LLL cannot be considered a ‘‘new’’ psychological construct. LLL is a concept which combines existing theories and models

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

115

under a lifespan perspective and is relevant from both societal and research perspectives – in particular concerning educational psychology, developmental psychology, and organizational psychology. Awareness of the necessity for a systematic advancement of learning in all life phases seems to be what is novel about the concept of LLL. From the perspective of educational psychology, this connotes a commitment to the systematic application and adaptation of research findings to learning environments and – in accordance with the structural model of ‘‘Bildung-Psychology’’ (Spiel, Reimann, Wagner, & Schober, 2008) – to systematically include all aspects of the educational career. All in all, trying to put LLL demands on the stage of individuals’ competencies cannot be done by applying a comprehensive psychological theory that explicitly deals with the basic psychological parameters determining successful LLL of individuals, as presently no such theory exists. However, a meaningful psychological specification of the concept of LLL on an individual level is sorely needed if one wants to reach beyond rather abstract recommendations (like they are, e.g., phrased in many political papers or in the ‘‘21st Century Skills’’) or wants to overcome isolated suggestions concerning research and guidelines for sustainable facilitation of LLL in scholastic settings. Summarizing the wide-ranging and diverse body of relevant literature on the topic (e.g., Achtenhagen & Lempert, 2000; McCombs, 1991; Schober et al., 2007) shows that two central psychological components seem to be pivotal for LLL (and its components mentioned in different memoranda) – regardless of age or learning context (e.g., Artelt, Baumert, Julius-McElvany, & Peschar, 2003; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk, 2005a, 2005b; Weinstein & Hume, 1998): (1) Enduring motivation and an appreciation for education and learning and (2) those competencies that are needed to successfully realize this motivation through concrete learning activities. Individuals will successfully master the demands of LLL when they see learning and the acquisition of knowledge as valuable and attractive (high motivation), and have the skills associated with selfregulated learning and effective knowledge management. These competencies, which are helpful over the course of the entire school career, for work and for private life, provide particular support during transition and decision periods which are often accompanied by changes and sometimes clear decreases in motivation (e.g., Lapointe, Legault, & Batiste, 2005). Present conceptual frameworks in the field of motivation and self-regulated learning show a strong overlap with regard to their specific components (e.g., Schober et al., 2007; Schunk et al., 2008); in some self-regulated learning approaches, motivational regulation/motivation are actually one component of self-regulated learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000). However, it cannot be the aim of this paper to substantially contribute to the ongoing and controversial theoretical debate concerning the relationship between these research traditions (e.g., Lftenegger et al., 2012; Pintrich, 1999; Urhahne, 2008). For the topic focused in the paper at hand, we have to consider decisive determinants of motivation

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

116


and self-regulation as parts of LLL competencies independent from their position in specific theoretical traditions. However, this does surely not mean, that a stronger theoretical integration would be considered generally irrelevant for promoting LLL. Research literature on determinants of motivation and self-regulation is rather extensive and measures to promote them in classroom are manifold (see section ‘‘Programs to promote LLL in school’’). Therefore, the question is where the specific new demands of facilitating LLL are. The answer can be found in the combination of the variety and disconnectedness of the relevant research (e.g., Middleton & Spanias, 1999) as well as in a deficit of transfer into practice. One finds separated and singular studies and measures which are theoretically unrelated, and mostly they focus on only particular determinants of motivation and self-regulation. For systematically facilitating LLL, however, a coordinated course of action which enhances both core components and is implemented in the daily life of learning and teaching in the educational establishment would be necessary.

‘‘The demands placed upon teachers are increasing. The environments in which they work are more and more challenging’’ (Commission of the European Communities, 2007, p. 2). However, in many countries teachers are not well prepared for fostering pupils’ LLL competencies. Hence, it is not surprising that teachers report a low selfefficacy when asked to estimate their skills related to the improvement of pupils’ competencies for LLL (Hadr & Sullivan, 2008). Summing up the findings – including significant international studies (OECD, 2008) – one must notice that educational systems and practices in many countries are obviously poorly prepared, and often ineffective, concerning the development of LLL competencies in schools. Therefore the question is: What could be done and what should be recommended to change this situation? But considering the fact that enhancing motivation and self-regulated learning are topics often investigated in educational psychology, any recommendation must be based on the analysis of present measures and programs and the question of why they are obviously not successful enough.

LLL Competencies in Schools – the Current Situation

Programs to Promote LLL in School

School in general is presently not considered to be successful in systematically imparting the LLL core components motivation and self-regulated learning (e.g., Artelt et al., 2003; Gottfried et al., 2001; Randi & Corno, 2000). A large number of international studies have examined various determinants of students’ learning motivation like interest, learning goal orientation, self-efficacy as well as aspects of self-regulated learning (for an overview see, e.g., Schunk et al., 2008). Although their results differ in detail, one finds strong evidence that decisive motivational determinants decrease the longer students stay in school, especially after the transition to secondary school (Fischer & Rustemeyer, 2007; Schunk et al., 2008; Wigfield et al., 2006). In some studies, a decline in students’ self-regulated learning behavior has also been reported (e.g., Peetsma, Hascher, Van der Veen, & Roede, 2005). In addition to this general trend of decreased LLL determinants in secondary school, a differential perspective also demonstrates that gender is a relevant dimension in this field: On the one hand, some results point to a general decrease in differences between boys and girls in achievement and motivational variables (Freeman, 2003; Lachance & Mazzocco, 2006; Ziegler, Dresel, & Schober, 2000). On the other hand, with regard to mathematics and the natural sciences one can also reaffirm the existence of traditional patterns of divergence: boys perform better and are more interested in these subjects, whereas girls perform better and are more interested in language-related fields (Artelt et al., 2003; Fischer & Rustemeyer, 2007; OECD, 2008; Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Kleine, 2008). Finally, literature shows that teachers and their instructions come to the fore within discussions about pupils’ preparation for LLL (e.g., Wayne & Youngs, 2003). European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

There are a huge number of measures focusing on the promotion of LLL-relevant competencies on different levels (e.g., Cendon et al., 2007), which also represent different perspectives (e.g., political, structural). The following outline is based on a psychological perspective, and therefore it primarily focuses on programs, trainings, and interventions for LLL on the individual level. For the LLL core components motivation and self-regulated learning, numerous wide-ranging reports of practical field applications and programs in school exist (e.g., Ames, 1992b; Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Fuchs et al., 2003; Glaser & Brunstein, 2007; McCombs & Miller, 2009; Torrance, Fidalgo, & Garca, 2007). Especially some of the self-regulated learning approaches have been able to certify clear success (Perels, Grtler, & Schmitz, 2005; Pickl, 2004 ), but the effects confirmed for most of the approaches were only short term in nature (e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004), restricted to individual subject areas (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006), or were not conducted in ordinary scholastic contexts (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). The lack of consideration of the school context, especially, should be considered one of the central deficits in most approaches because the enduring enhancement of LLL determinants must be done in the classroom (e.g., Lftenegger et al., 2012). Other critical points address the lack of evaluation studies for promotion approaches in classroom (e.g., for the TARGET concept; Ames, 1992a). Additionally, measures were taken singularly and in isolation, they were not theoretically related to one another, and for the most part they focused on detached parameters (see Middleton & Spanias, 1999). So, there are programs which put the focus, for example, only on one specific motivational construct like, for example, attributions (e.g., Dresel & Haugwitz, 2009), interest (e.g., Cognition and 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992), reference norms (e.g., Rheinberg & Krug, 2005) or self-worth (Covington & Teel, 1996), or on one aspect of self-regulated learning like, for example, learning strategies (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2003; Torrance et al., 2007). However, approaches for school under the explicit maxim of promoting LLL are rare. There is clear lack of scientifically founded and evaluated programs to promote LLL competencies as shown by a review of the present literature (database: PsycInfo, Eric). This is also true for the measures and strategies to support the ‘‘21st Century Skills’’. Referring to them, requirements and measures can be found on curriculum design and instruction, on professional development of teachers, and on learning environments (see Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2012 or Trilling & Fadel, 2009). However, most of them remain on the level of enumerative recommendations. Only one systematically evaluated training program for teachers could be found that explicitly deals with LLL in general (Schober et al., 2007), and only very few implemented programs simultaneously focus on both of the two core components ‘‘motivation’’ and ‘‘learning-skills’’ (e.g., Perels et al., 2005; Veenman, Beems, Gerrits, & De Weegh, 1999). The only training program which explicitly aims to implement the promotion of LLL in the classroom is the ‘‘Trainingsprogramm zum Aufbau von LehrerInnenKompetenzen zur Fçrderung von Lebenslangem Lernen’’ (TALK; Training program to foster teacher competencies to encourage LLL, see Schober et al., 2007), which is described in more detail in the following.

TALK Theoretical Background, Structure, and Goals TALK is a three-semester teachers’ training program to foster teachers’ instructional competencies to promote LLL in

117

their classrooms and schools. The training program was designed for secondary school teachers who participate in school teams. The participation in school teams is a precondition to ensure that teachers can support each other in integrating elements of the training into their classroom instruction and in successfully implementing a school project. TALK consists of 21 workshop sessions with a total of 130 hr. These meetings take place more intensely during the first semester and become less intense during the second and third semesters. During the first two semesters, the teachers are encouraged to optimize their classroom instruction in terms of an optimal promotion of students’ successful LLL competencies. Examples of recommendations how teachers can promote students’ LLL competencies are provided in Table 1. In the third semester, the focus turns to securing the lasting effects of the training goals, and so teachers develop and execute in their school teams a collaborative school project. Session contents explicitly cover the topic of LLL as well as target variables from the fields of both motivation and self-regulated learning. Both research fields are closely connected, and target variables can be identified from corresponding literature that simultaneously includes the promotion of motivation and self-regulated learning (see Schober, 2002; Ziegler, 1999). The teachers learned about scientific results regarding the target variables and how to transfer these in their daily classroom instruction and schools. Figure 1 shows the theoretical process model of TALK (Schober et al., 2007) that is based on present process models (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1990; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000) and was presented to the teachers. In the chosen process model, the learning action is divided into four phases that are subjected to systematic stimulation. Additionally, Figure 1 includes the target variables which influence the different learning phases of students. In the first phase (= predecisional phase) a learning action is initiated. Based on the expectancy-value theory of motivation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), people start to learn if they believe that they can be successful in performing a task (= expectancy component) and if they consider

Table 1. Sample contents addressed in TALK training and corresponding recommendations Sample contents

Sample recommendations for the lessons

Interest

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Goal orientation

Learning competencies


Foster autonomy (e.g., through providing different alternatives to choose). Foster perceived self-competence (e.g., through feedback). Foster social relatedness (e.g., through cooperative learning, caring). Provide problem-oriented tasks. Emphasize relevance and gain of the learning content. ... Establish a positive culture of mistakes. Focus on the learning process more than on the learning product. Provide feedback often by using an individual and criterial reference norm. ... Teach learning strategies. Teach metacognitive strategies. Show the relevance and the gain of using such strategies. Provide opportunities to apply and reflect the implementation of learning and metacognitive strategies. ... European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

118


Figure 1. Overview of the theoretical process model of TALK. The model includes the target variables (derived from the areas of motivation and self-regulated learning) that influence learners’ different learning phases.

the task to be important (= value component). In the preactional phase and the actional phase, the planning and execution of the learning action takes place. Thus, learning only remains attractive for students when they also know HOW to do it successfully (see, e.g., Weinstein & Hume, 1998). To control and regulate their learning, students need to use various cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Pintrich, 1999). Finally, in the postactional phase, a functional assessment of the action taken happens, so that continued learning remains attractive in the future. Only persons who attribute success to their own merit and see failure as something that can be coped with and controlled will be able to maintain their appreciation for and expectation of success in the context of learning. Therefore, an individual should have a reference norm conducive to motivation, a functional style of attribution, and strategies for how to deal with performance feedback (see, e.g., Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Rollett, 2000; Weiner, 2005). The acquisition of appropriate learning action competencies to foster long-term effects of LLL in daily classroom instruction and interaction is a major concern of TALK. In line with Weinert (2001), action competencies require, in addition to motivational preconditions, social and cognitive qualifications for successful learning. Therefore, TALK focuses on four core components: (1) motivation for learning and (2) self-regulated learning competencies are complemented by (3) social skills and (4) cognitive abilities as core components for successful LLL. Consequential, TALK pursues goals on proximal, indirect, and distal levels. The proximal goal of TALK is a change among teachers, who should reflect on their teaching and are offered new knowledge and skills during the training. Based on this they should change or rather optimize their classroom instruction. Indirectly, TALK finally aims to trigger changes among the students who should profit from the new classroom instruction of their teachers. In addition, distal changes are expected in the learning culture of the schools where these teachers are employed, not only among their colleagues but also in school administration. European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

Didactic Principles of the TALK Workshops Four didactic principles are systematically applied in the TALK workshops. (1) Encouragement of various types of knowledge: By working through learning material, the acquisition of declarative, procedural, contextual, and meta-cognitive knowledge is supported (de Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). Teachers are stimulated to reflect on their own learning processes and to come up with concrete applications. (2) Reliance on central principles developed in the field of instructional psychology: To ensure a successful increase in knowledge and skills, the sessions will, for example, explicitly inform participants about learning goals or activate learners’ prior knowledge. (3) Working with authentic learning situations: To ensure the transfer of the training to daily school life, the training will focus on concrete classroomrelated situations (according to the ‘‘anchored instruction’’ approach; e.g., Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990). (4) Learning contents are imparted both explicitly and implicitly. The support offered to the teachers is increasingly reduced (‘‘fading’’) over the three semesters in accordance with the cognitive apprenticeship method (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). With these didactic principles, TALK tries to achieve lasting, long-term adjustments of teachers’ classroom instruction in favor of fostering students’ LLL competencies.

Evaluation Design A total of 41 teachers from 15 Austrian secondary schools took part in three training groups in the pilot phase of TALK. Each teacher chose one class where the content of the training program was tested and implemented, whereby a total of 780 students were involved in the training. 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


Analyses were conducted among the TALK teachers, as well as the students, colleagues, and directors of these teachers, in the form of a pre-post-post-follow-up design to evaluate the changes in the above-defined components of LLL. TALK was subjected to both a summative and a formative evaluation. A formative evaluation model was applied to accompany the implementation of the program and a summative evaluation model to check the program’s efficacy using a multi-method, multi-informant approach (Spiel, Gradinger, & Lftenegger, 2010). This was done in a training (= treatment)-control group design, collecting quantitative (closed questions in surveys) and qualitative data (openended questions and vignettes in surveys, focus groups, interviews, diaries, portfolios, and reflection rounds). The control groups consisted of samples of teachers and students who did not participate in the intervention and were matched with a Euclidean distance-based matching procedure (see Spiel et al., 2008). The matching variables for both groups were chosen on a theoretical basis. In detail, we selected decisive motivation and self-regulation parameters and ensured comparable starting values (for the teacher control group, e.g., ‘‘teacher beliefs’’ that LLL is a relevant task for school, ‘‘occupational motivation’’ and ‘‘personal self-efficacy’’ were controlled; in the student group matchings were based on ‘‘grade’’, ‘‘perceived autonomy in classroom’’, ‘‘perceived promotion of self-regulation in classroom’’, ‘‘self-efficacy’’, and ‘‘learning competencies’’). At the same time, the evaluation concept was located in the four levels of the evaluation model of Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), taking into account the proximal, indirect, and distal training goals of TALK. For an overview of the elaborated evaluation design see Table 2. Results Present evaluative results are in favor of the effectiveness of the TALK training program. The evaluation showed positive effects regarding the learning level according to

119

the proximal training goals for the teachers. At the beginning of TALK, the teachers showed a clear need for more knowledge regarding the question of how to enhance LLL in school (Schober et al., 2007). Teachers’ motivation for their job (intracontrol group effect; t(39) = 2.61, p = .01, dintra = .39) and their self-efficacy (interaction Group · Time; F(1, 78) = 5.54, p = .002, dinter = .42) were enhanced (Lftenegger, Wagner, Finsterwald, Schober, & Spiel, 2010; Spiel, Lftenegger, Wagner, Schober, & Finsterwald, 2011). Teacher cooperation was positively affected by the training as well (interaction Group · Time; F(1, 78) = 9.92, p < .001, dinter = .65). Specifically, TALK teachers spent much more time with their colleagues at school discussing the contents of lessons and tests, teaching and evaluation methods (Lftenegger et al., 2010; Spiel et al., 2011). Teachers also reported that they are aware of more methods for classroom instruction to foster, for example, motivation (F(1, 74) = 13.625, p < .001, g2 = .16), self-regulated learning (F(1, 74) = 18.008, p < .001, g2 = .20), social skills (F(1, 74) = 5.155, p = .026, g2 = .07), or cognitive abilities (F(1, 74) = 10.848, p = .002, g2 = .13) (Lftenegger et al., 2010; Wagner, Lftenegger, Finsterwald, Schober, & Spiel, 2012). Results from interviews taken four months after the training showed clear evidence of a gain of knowledge on how to design and arrange lessons and instructional processes in the sense of reaching an LLL promotion (Wagner et al., 2012). On the behavior level (indirect goals), teachers reported in focus groups the following training effects: sensitization and systematic self-observation (e.g., intentional formulation of feedback to students); conscious application of previously intuitive practices; a validation of one’s own behavior in the classroom; increased willingness to experiment and a stronger focus on students’ individuality (Spiel et al., 2011). Additionally, the changes in teacher competences were reflected, for example, in a higher perceived promotion of self-regulated learning in the lessons as assessed by students in TALK classes in comparison to students in control

Table 2. Overview of the TALK evaluation design Evaluation approach

Intervention goals

Formative evaluation

Evaluation levels Reaction Learning Behavior Results

Method

Instruments

Qualitative

Reflection rounds Focus group Interview Portfolio Training dairy

Target group TALK teachers TALK trainer

Summative evaluation

Proximal goals

Learning

Quantitative Qualitative

Questionnaire Interview

TALK teachers Teachers (CG)


Indirect goals

Behavior

Quantitative Qualitative

Reflection rounds Questionnaire Interview Trainings dairy

TALK teachers Teachers (CG) TALK students Students (CG)


Distal goals

Results

Qualitative Quantitative

Questionnaire Interview Portfolio

TALK teachers TALK principal TALK colleagues



120


classes (interaction Group · Time; F(2, 1142) = 11.15, p < .001, g2 = .01). With regard to self-regulated learning, students in TALK classes reported that they were more instructed to set their own goals, to learn and apply adaptive learning strategies, and to monitor and reflect on their own learning process. Furthermore, sleeper effects occurred for several variables measuring students’ motivation (Spiel et al., 2011). Students from both groups showed no differences at the first two measurement points. However, students from the TALK classes had higher scores at the end of the training concerning learning goal orientation (interaction Group · Time; F(1, 1143) = 2.99, p = .084, g2 = .003; Time = second and third measurement point; one sided hypothesis testing) and individual reference norm (F(1, 1143) = 4.16, p = .042, g2 = .002). On a distal level, with a view to training effects on the schools, results of the school projects conducted within the third semester, documented in portfolios and analyzed via expert ratings, showed changes in the intended direction (for details of results on the school level see Wagner et al., 2012).

Conclusion There is clear lack of scientifically based promotion programs for LLL components. TALK is an example of a comprehensive training concept which explicitly focuses on the promotion of LLL in school and is based on various theoretical approaches which were systematically integrated. In the training, teachers are encouraged to organize their daily work activities, and their schools, in accordance with an LLL promotion. TALK is therewith a program tailored to meet the specific needs of teachers and individual schools. Systematic evaluation accompanied the concrete implementation of TALK in the school context and revealed its effectiveness and sustainability. Nevertheless, verifiable effects of a program like TALK on the student level must remain restricted in their effect sizes. This is due to several reasons, but at least two basic obstacles become evident: (1) LLL competencies and a successful teaching of them are complex topics and refer to parameters which were learned for long years. So substantial changes need time and external intervention programs like TALK are always limited with regard to this. (2) Sustainable changes are restrained, if they are just realized by some teachers of a school. If TALK should unfold its full potential, not only some teachers in some subjects should change their attitudes and ways of teaching. This directly leads to the question of general requirements for facilitating LLL in school.

Discussion and General Recommendations The closing question of what consequences for school, policy, and science should be derived from the described European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

insights, programs, and recognized deficits of facilitating LLL in school can be answered with six recommendations on two main levels of necessary changes. These recommendations also specify corresponding specific demands for future research.

School Level: What Is Necessary to Facilitate Students’ LLL Competencies? If LLL core components independent of age and context are to be enhanced in school, (1) students’ learning motivation and self-regulation must be brought to the fore (Achtenhagen & Lempert, 2000; Artelt et al., 2003; McCombs, 1991; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Schober et al., 2007; Schunk, 2005a; Weinstein & Hume, 1998). Regarding present literature, this means that parameters like learning-related selfefficacy, goal orientation, attribution style, dealing with failure and feedback as well as learning strategies, volitional strategies, or goal setting (see, e.g., Pintrich, 2003; Schunk et al., 2008; Wigfield et al., 2006) must be considered as explicit goals for school teaching. This also means to pay specific attention to sustaining the positive starting motivation of students in their first school years. Research is challenged here in several fields: There still is a clear theoretical deficit regarding the detailed theoretical relationship of motivation and self-regulation, and a wide range of rather unrelated research exists (Middleton & Spanias, 1999; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989, 2008). So gaining systematic knowledge about decisive motivational variables and their relation to each other and to self-regulation would be decisive for developing a psychologically founded theoretical LLL model. In this respect, LLL could be considered as a topic to merge traditional research fields. Additionally, more longitudinal studies of the development of basic competencies for LLL are required to get a more detailed insight into differentiated questions of their development – for example, in relation to school characteristics (see, e.g., stage environment fit; Eccles et al., 1993), socioeconomic parameters, etc. – and for developing competence models as a basis for interventions. Moreover, and based on theoretical knowledge, (2) evidence-based intervention programs, and teacher trainings in particular, focusing on the sustainable enhancement of basic LLL competencies should be developed and implemented. This seems necessary as teaching, and thereby teachers, are the primary actors of changing learning processes in schools. One central challenge for research here is to meet both scientific standards and the demands of practice. With TALK, a training program was presented that combines a scientific basis with systematic evaluation and meets basic criteria of successful further education (e.g., Lipowsky, 2010). With regard to research on such criteria (Lipowsky, 2004, 2010), this program implements some specific characteristics for effective and sustainable professionalization of teachers in the field of facilitating LLL in schools: Concerning structural parameters, it 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


became evident that (a) effective teacher education programs have to extend over a longer period of time; LLL cannot be imparted through brief trainings or via single ‘‘project days for LLL.’’ In keeping with this, (b) both theory-based and practical methodical designs must be developed, explicitly adjusted to different phases of changes (e.g., ‘‘overview, reflection of competences and prior learning, deriving new goals, input, exercise, reflection’’). (c) The focus must be laid directly on pupils’ learning processes and on specific topics of teacher instruction (e.g., one session on feedback). Working with teachers must (d) be guided by directly connecting the program with their prior knowledge and daily experience and must (e) consider the development of teachers’ subjective theories. Training programs also must (f) include the possibility of applying what was learned and getting feedback on it, and (g) must create occasions for teamwork and exchange between teachers in each school. This enhances the chances of transfer and sustainability. This means that if facilitation of LLL is to become a credible goal and characteristic for schools, (3) interventions and programs must be transferred into guiding principles of teaching in daily school life. This requires not only new programs and changes in teacher education, but also in professionalization of schools and school development processes (e.g., Bonsen & Bos, 2010). On this note, the establishment of a culture of evidence-based teaching for both the specific promotional measures in the context of LLL as well as the educational system in general should be factored in. The permanent review of whether schools have been able to attain the educational goals they are pursuing is indispensable for improvements in the advancement of LLL and its determinants. The contribution from educational research that is necessary here is rather obvious: Development of school development concepts that are based on studies focusing on the consequences of school arrangements for motivation and self-regulation (Bonsen & Bos, 2010). Therefore, longitudinal studies and an integration of both basic and applied research would again be necessary.

Educational Policy Level: What Structural Changes Are Necessary to Implement Facilitation of LLL Competencies in School? The described recommendations on the school level can only be partly successful without embedding them in corresponding measures on a political level. One decisive aspect can be identified in (4) political decisions and programs that visibly advance the often-cited professionalization of teachers and schools. Therefore, changes in the governance of schools and universities (Brsemeister & Heinrich, 2011) must be set into practice that would initially enable these institutions to sustainably change teaching principles (e.g., in the form of more autonomy in time management). 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

121

These decisions should be based on a systematic specification of what LLL competencies are and how they could be systematically enhanced. There are many national and European strategies and programs for LLL, but what they lack is (5) a consistent, systematic and specific ‘‘master plan.’’ One very often finds a missing view on the complexity and wholistic nature of relevant processes in this context: Enhancing LLL in school cannot be successful if only some aspects are regarded, if only parts of training programs are realized, and if decisive system parameters (e.g., teacher education) are not considered systematically (Schober, Finsterwald, Wagner, & Spiel, 2009). Additionally, LLL is so far predominantly a topic of continuing and adult education (e.g., Cendon et al., 2007). In consideration of the demonstrated central importance of school for building basic LLL competencies, however, it is strongly recommended that the promotion of learning motivation and self-regulated learning should become a consistent principle of educational measures from preschool up until senior citizen education (Spiel et al., 2008). Finally (6) the value of education in society should be made more apparent – for example, in the form of investments and a corresponding furnishing of ‘‘active manpower.’’ This is reinforced by analyses from PISA and TIMSS asserting that country-specific differences in the value placed on education in the form of a targeted willingness to invest and to exert effort by various societal stakeholders in educational policy are important explanatory factors for performance differences (Baumert & Stanat, 2006). Campaigns to strengthen positive examples, such as the German project ‘‘Treibhuser der Zukunft’’ (= ‘‘Greenhouses of the Future’’; Kahl, 2005), are also relevant here. In sum, one characteristic challenge within the facilitation of LLL in schools seems to be grounded in the necessity of integration and adjustment of at least three different fields of action: scientific theories and concepts, transfer and implementation of knowledge, and cultural and political embedment. Additionally, more systematic cooperation between research, school, and politics seems necessary to achieve success. Therefore, it is rather obvious where the specific problems and concurrently chances of realizing facilitation of LLL in schools lie. Finally one should become aware, that promoting LLL not only means to successfully meet academic standards, but also to ensure children to develop a positive attitude to changes and challenges. Therefore, criteria for school success should be generally reconsidered.

References Achtenhagen, F., & Lempert, W. (2000). Lebenslanges Lernen im Beruf – seine Grundlegung im Kindes-und Jugendalter (Band I-V) [Lifelong learning in working life – its foundation in childhood and adolescence]. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich. Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In J. L. Meece & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

122


Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261– 271. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life: Student approaches to learning: Results from Pisa 2000. Paris, France: OECD. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on selfregulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.523 Baumert, J., & Stanat, P. (2006). Internationale Schulleistungsvergleiche [International Student Assessments]. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Handwçrterbuch Pdagogische Psychologie (pp. 291–302). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1 Bonsen, M., & Bos, W. (2010). Bildungspsychologie der Mesoebene [Meso-level educational psychology]. In C. Spiel, B. Schober, P. Wagner, & R. Reimann (Eds.), Bildungspsychologie (pp. 388–405). Gçttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instructions: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brsemeister, T., & Heinrich, M. (Eds). (2011). Autonomie und Verantwortung. Governance in Schule und Hochschule [Autonomy and responsibility: Governance in schools and universities]. Mnster, Germany: Monsenstein und Vannerdat. Cendon, E., Chisholm, L., Heller, H., Jtte, W., Koller, E., Lassnigg, L., . . . Schlçgl, P. (2007) (Eds.), Leitlinien einer kohrenten LLL-Strategie fr sterreich bis 2010 [Guidelines for a coherent LLL strategy for Austria by 2010]. Retrieved from http://l3lab.erwachsenenbildung.at/wp-content/uploads/lll-expertinnenpapier_end.pdf Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance selfregulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537–550. doi: 10.1002/ pits.10177 Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Commission of the European Communities (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities (2007). Improving the Quality of Teacher Education (COM 392). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf Covington, M. V., & Teel, K. M. (1996). Overcoming student failure: Changing motives and incentives for learning. American Psychological Association,. doi: 10.1037/10193000 de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105– 113. Dresel, M. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of Dweck’s Motivation-Process-Model in the classroom. Psychologische Beitrge, 43, 129–152. European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2009). A computer based training approach to foster motivation and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 3–20. Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122–139). New York, NY: Guilford. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stageenvironment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90– 101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90 European Commission. (2001). Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. European Parliament. (2006). Key competences for lifelong learning. Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning [Official Journal L 394 of 30.12.2006]. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:EN: PDF Fischer, N., & Rustemeyer, R. (2007). Motivationsentwicklung und schlerperzipiertes Lehrkraftverhalten im Mathematikunterricht [Development of motivation and student-perceived teacher behavior in mathematics lessons]. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogische Psychologie, 21, 135–144. doi: 10.1024/ 1010-0652.21.2.135 Freeman, J. (2003). Gender differences in gifted achievement in Britain and the US. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 202–211. doi: 10.1177/001698620304700304 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., & Schroeter, K. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306–315. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306 Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297–310. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297 Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 2: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 53–92). New York, NY: Guilford. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.3 Hadr, P., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008). Teacher perceptions and individual differences: How they influence rural teachers’ motivating strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2059–2075. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.007 Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00421 Kahl, R. (Producer) (2005). Treibhuser der Zukunft: Wie in Deutschland Schulen gelingen: eine Dokumentation [Greenhouses of the future: How schools succeed in Germany: A documentary] [Film, DVD]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


Lachance, J. A., & Mazzocco, M. M. (2006). A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in math and spatial skills in primary school age children. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 195–216. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2005.12.001 Lapointe, J. M., Legault, F., & Batiste, S. J. (2005). Teacher interpersonal behavior and adolescents’ motivation in mathematics: A comparison of learning disabled, average, and talented students. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 39–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.005 Lipowsky, F. (2004). Was macht Fortbildungen fr Lehrkrfte erfolgreich? Befunde der Forschung und mçgliche Konsequenzen fr die Praxis [What makes continuing education for teachers successful? Research findings and possible consequences for application]. Die Deutsche Schule, 94, 462–479. Lipowsky, F. (2010). Lernen im Beruf – Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbildung [Vocational learning – empirical findings on the effectiveness of continuing education for teachers]. In F. Mller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lders, & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen – Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung (S. 51–72). Mnster, Germany: Waxmann. Lftenegger, M., Schober, B., van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2012). Lifelong learning as a goal – Do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared pupils? (Eds.), Learning and Instruction, 22, 27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.001 Lftenegger, M., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2010). TALK: Ein Trainingsprogramm fr Lehrkrfte zur Fçrderung von Lebenslangem Lernen in der Schule [TALK: A training program for teachers to promote lifelong learning in schools]. In F. H. Mller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lders, & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen. Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung (pp. 327–343). Mnster, Germany: Waxmann. McCombs, B. L. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 117–127. doi: 10.1207/ s15326985ep2602_4 McCombs, B. L., & Miller, L. (2009). The school leader’s guide to learner-centered education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 65–88. doi: 10.2307/749630 OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World – First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2008). Education at a glance 2008. OECD indicators. Paris, France: OECD. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2012). P21 – The partnership for 21st century skills [website]. Retrieved from http:// www.p21.org/ Peetsma, T., Hascher, T., van der Veen, I., & Roede, E. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ self-evaluations, time perspectives, motivation for school and their achievement in different countries and at different ages. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 209–225. doi: 10.1007/ BF03173553 Perels, F., Grtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005). Training of selfregulatory and problem-solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15, 123–139. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005. 04.010 Pickl, C. (2004). Selbstregulation und Transfer [Self-regulation and transfer]. Weinheim, Germany: PVU. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470. doi: 10.1016/S08830355(99)00015-4 Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

123

Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667 Pintrich, R. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and selfregulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 146– 159. doi: 10.1177/0016986208315834 Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). San Francisco, CA: Academic Press. Rheinberg, F., & Krug, S. (2005). Motivationsfçrderung im Schulalltag [Fostering motivation in the everyday school context]. Gçttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503–531). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 64–96. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych. 2005.02.002 Schober, B. (2002). Entwicklung und Evaluation des Mnchner Motivationstrainings (MMT) [Development and evaluation of the Mnchner Motivationstraining (MMT). A motivation training method]. Regensburg, Germany: Roderer. Schober, B., Finsterwald, M., Wagner, P., Lftenegger, M., Aysner, M., & Spiel, C. (2007). TALK: A training program to encourage lifelong learning in school. Journal of Psychology, 215, 183–193. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.215. 3.183 Schober, B., Finsterwald, M., Wagner, P., & Spiel, C. (2009). Lebenslanges Lernen als Herausforderung der Wissensgesellschaft: Die Schule als Ort der Fçrderung von Bildungsmotivation und selbstreguliertem Lernen [Lifelong learning as a challenge for the knowledge society: School as place for enhancement of educational motivation and self-regulated learning]. In W. Specht (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht sterreich (pp. 121–139). Graz, Austria: Leykam. Schunk, D. H. (2005a). Self-Regulated Learning: The Educational Legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85–94. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4002_3. Schunk, D. H. (2005b). Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts. Learning and Instruction, 15, 173–177. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.013 Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education. Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using selfregulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16, 57–71. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005. 12.006 Spiel, C., Gradinger, P., & Lftenegger, M. (2010). Grundlagen der Evaluationsforschung [Foundations of evaluation research]. In H. Holling & B. Schmitz (Eds.), Handbuch Statistik, Methoden und Evaluation (pp. 223–232). Gçttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Spiel, C., Lapka, D., Gradinger, P., Zodlhofer, E. M., Reimann, R., Schober, B., . . . von Eye, A. (2008). A Euclidean distance-based matching procedure for nonrandomized European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(2):114–125

124


comparison studies. European Psychologist, 13, 180–187. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.3.180 Spiel, C., Lftenegger, M., Wagner, P., Schober, B., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Fçrderung von Lebenslangem Lernen – eine Aufgabe der Schule [Promoting lifelong learning: A task for schools]. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Ed.), Stationen Empirischer Bildungsforschung: Traditionslinien und Perspektiven (pp. 305–319). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften. Spiel, C., Reimann, R., Wagner, P., & Schober, B. (2008). Bildung-psychology: The substance and structure of an emerging discipline. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 154–159. Spiel, C., Wagner, P., & Fellner, G. (2002). Wie lange arbeiten Kinder zu Hause fr die Schule? [How much time do children spend on schoolwork at home?]. Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspsychologie und Pdagogische Psychologie, 34, 125–135. doi: 10.1026//0049-8637.34.3.125 Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 80–90. doi: 10.1016/ j.lindif.2008.05.004 Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & Garca, J.-N. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17, 265– 285. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.003 Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Urhahne, D. (2008). Sieben Arten der Lernmotivation. Ein berblick ber zentrale Forschungskonzepte [Seven kinds of motivation toward learning. An overview of central research approaches]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 150– 166. doi: 10.1026/0033-3042.59.3.150 Veenman, S., Beems, D., Gerrits, S., & De Weegh, G. O. (1999). Implementation effects of a training program for self-regulated learning. Journal of research and development in education, 32, 148–159. Wagner, P., Lftenegger, M., Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2012). ‘‘Multi-method’’ Evaluation am Beispiel des Lehrkrftetrainingsprogramms TALK [Multi-method evaluation exemplified by the teacher training program TALK]. In M. Glser-Zikuda, T. Seidel, C. Rohlfs, A. Grçschner, & S. Ziegelbauer (Eds.), Mixed Methods in der empirischen Bildungsforschung (pp. 243–258). Mnster, Germany: Waxmann. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A Review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122. doi: 10.3102/00346543073001089 Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Guilford. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–66). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber. Weinstein, C. E., & Hume, L. M. (1998). Study strategies for lifelong learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 933–1002). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


Ziegler, A. (1999). Motivation [Motivation]. In C. Perleth & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Pdagogische Psychologie: Grundlagen und Anwendungsfelder (pp. 103–113). Bern, Switzerland: Huber. Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., & Schober, B. (2000). Prdiktoren des Selbstvertrauens von Mdchen und Jungen vor dem erstmaligen Chemieunterricht am Gymnasium [Predictors of selfconfidence among girls and boys attending college preparatory schools prior to initial chemistry instruction]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 47, 66–75. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). London, UK: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Springer. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation: An essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and selfregulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Routledge.

Received September 3, 2011 Accepted July 5, 2012 About the authors Barbara Schober is Professor of Psychological Research on Education and Transfer in the Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria. Her research focuses on learning motivation, self-regulation, teacher training, development and evaluation of intervention programs, gender differences in educational contexts and is published in numerous international journals. Marko Lftenegger is a postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria. His research focuses on motivation and selfregulated learning in education, evaluation of intervention programs, and teacher education.

Petra Wagner is Professor of Psychology in the School of Applied Health and Social Sciences, Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences, Linz, Austria. She has broad experience in psychological research as well as in teaching. Her research focuses on self-regulation, scholastic stress factors, time management, gender differences in educational contexts, and evaluation.



Monika Finsterwald is a postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria. Her research focuses on development, implementation, and evaluation of intervention programs (lifelong learning, gender, gifted education), teacher education, and quality improvement in youth welfare.

125

Barbara Schober Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education, Economy Faculty of Psychology University of Vienna Universittsstr. 7 1010 Vienna Austria Tel. +43 1 4277-47322 Fax +43 1 4277-47319 E-mail [email protected]

Christiane Spiel is Professor of Educational Psychology and Evaluation and head of the Department of Economic Psychology, Educational Psychology and Evaluation at the University of Vienna, Austria. Her present research interests focus on lifelong learning, violence prevention, social relations in multicultural school contexts, gender stereotypes, and evaluation.

