Designing Tools for Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Collaborative Learning Environment: Understanding from the University School Dresden

Abstract

The chapter discusses pedagogical methods and tools that promote individual growth in collaborative school learning processes, emphasizing applied educational research at Europe’s largest real lab, The University School Dresden, with 800 students, 50 teachers, and multidisciplinary scientists. Daily activities involve quick feedback loops, continuous testing, and method/tool refinement for impactful learning. This chapter explores (a) “Learning paths” for guiding individual development, (b) the “Logbook” for planning personalized learning, and (c) the “Lapbook” for project-based activities with peers. These methods align with cultural-historical theory’s view of learning and development. This chapter spotlights tools developed by the research team to enhance self-regulated learning, vital for cultural-historical theory-based learning environments. Initial evidence suggests that (a) tools should align with student development and (b) teachers need continuous professionalization for optimal utility.

1. Introduction

The framework for children’s development is changing, primarily through the digital. Self-regulated learning in conjunction with digital has also recently become more critical in the pandemic, placing new demands on children’s development. Independently of this, the use of digital tools is increasingly being demanded of future employees, for example, in the form of the 4Cs (cooperation, communication, creativity, and critical thinking), which are emphasized as necessary by the OECD.¹Dealing with digitality and self-regulated learning (SRL) thus extends traditional cultural skills (reading, writing, and arithmetic) so that schools will only be able to fulfill their qualification function [1] in the future only if it also supports the development of these competencies. The school is where children and young people aged 6 to 18 spend (at least) half a day daily. At the same time, the school has the task of organizing learning [2]. But how must learning be organized under these challenges? This question is being explored in this chapter. Based on the first evidence from the school experiment University School Dresden, a Laboratory School, mainly methodological-didactical answers are given.

The chapter starts with a theoretical introduction: Starting from the cultural-historical theory, with reference to concepts of self-regulated learning, theory-based requirements for didactics, and methodology in the classroom are formulated and are related to the idea of the University School Dresden. While the theory references alone do not provide explicit answers to the challenges, we believe that with a new orientation of learning settings based on these aspects, initial approaches can be developed to address the challenges mentioned above.

Therefore, in the second part of the chapter, three instruments will be presented in a practice-oriented way, which have been developed in the last three years in the school experiment University School Dresden in a co-construction process between science and school practice [3, 4] to support students in their learning processes: Learning Paths; Logbook; and Lapbook. All three instruments are outlined in this chapter at their current stage of development. The development process, as well as the application processes in the school, were accompanied so that the first findings from the application of the instruments, which on the one hand, focus on the adaptations of the instruments and the other hand, on the professionalization of the teachers in the use of these instruments, can be presented within the framework of this chapter. Thus, this chapter is neither strictly theoretical nor empirical. Instead, it moves at the interface between theory and practice, aiming to make visible transfer processes of theoretical considerations into practical methods/measures and inviting to reflect on the relationship between theory and pedagogical methods/materials and their accompanying techniques.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Cultural-historical theory

Following the understanding of the cultural-historical theory, learning is an individual activity. It can only be sustained if what and how something is learned makes sense to the individual. Meaningfulness, in turn, arises for the individual by connecting to the individual’s experiences and needs in the engagement with the world [5]; this is the actual learning activity. Activity in the sense of cultural-historical theory does not only mean complying with the teacher’s requested actions. Still, it includes an active engagement with the world up to one’s structuring of this appropriation process. In this process, the individual uses the most convenient access to the world. Consequently, to learn and develop, he needs differentiated offers to acquire knowledge. According to Galperin [6] interiorization process, it can be the materialized action and the accompanying language, to name just two aspects that the individual can use in the learning process.

For the appropriation of the world, according to the cultural-historical theory, not only the meaningfulness and the nature of the activity are decisive, but also whether what is to be appropriated in the Zone of Current Development and the individual is allowed to move in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Zone of Proximal Development [7] emphasizes the importance of dialog with others for the individual’s development process. Because the story takes place primarily in the Zone of Proximal Development, that zone in which the individual accomplishes things that he could not do without someone else’s support. The Zone of Current Development, on the other hand, describes what the individual can already do independently without help. Therefore, the learning and development process requires cooperation tied to dialog. Dialog does not have to mean a linguistic exchange, on the contrary: Dialog includes speaking to each other and sharing a rhythm, interaction, or nonverbal communication. According to Buber [8], it is a dialog when the counterpart (each of the participants) “really means the other(s) in their being and suchness and turns to them with the intention that living reciprocity is established between him and them” ([8], p. 166). For a dialog to develop, it is necessary to have an attitude of recognition and to perceive the other person with their needs, views, and interests. Only through cooperation and dialog can the human being develop as a social being because his intrapsychic processes are conditioned by interpsychic procedures, which refer to a reciprocal relationship with other persons/humans (for example [9]).

Due to the dependence of human beings on sociality, a successful development process requires both the exact determination of the respective starting situation of a student and an open learning environment for individual development and the possibility for collaborative learning processes. Each individual can only create meaning for him or herself, so learning opportunities are easier to formulate and determine when students are more active process designers of their development and learning.

Such an understanding of individual learning and development processes is not only found in the cultural-historical school. Also, Zimmerman [10], one of the best-known researchers on self-regulated learning, formulates: “Learners are proactive in their efforts to learn because they are aware of their strengths and limitations and because personal set goals and task-related strategies guide them” ([10], p. 65f). Therefore, the following section will focus on concepts of self-regulated learning.

2.2 Self-regulated learning

As already explained in the section on the cultural-historical school, learning involves active construction processes, i.e., children develop concepts, ideas, and knowledge about the world around them in active engagement with their environment. Such an understanding of learning processes makes it clear that they are, on the one hand, highly individual and, on the other hand, require initiative on the part of the learner. Moreover, while learning settings are created in school contexts, these sometimes vary considerably in their structuring (teacher-centered vs. weekly schedule work). Increasingly, self-regulatory skills are required for this. Last but not least, changing learning formats during the pandemic, which were mainly accompanied by an increase in digital or hybrid learning contexts and characterized by an increased shift of school-based knowledge acquisition to the home context, partly without adequate pedagogical support, have once again highlighted the relevance of self-regulated learning processes.

Even beyond pandemic conditions, the dynamics of progress in all areas of life require an agile acquisition of competencies that enables knowledge to be acquired independently. In addition to school contexts, this also applies to non-school contexts and, in the sense of lifelong learning, to people of all ages since self-regulated learning is also highly relevant in training/continuing training processes in everyday working life [11].

One of the most frequently cited definitions of self-regulated learning is according to Schiefele & Pekrun: “Self-regulated learning is a form of learning in which the person, depending on the nature of his or her motivation to learn, self-determines one or more self-control measures (cognitive, metacognitive, volitional, or behavioral) and self-monitors the progress of the learning process” [12].

This understanding follows conceptions that conceive of behavior as a function (f) and interaction (I) of both cognitive (K), motivational (M), emotional (E), and social characteristics (S), as well as characteristics of the organism (O) and the environment (U). Westhoff and Kluck [13] summarize this in a shortened way in a so-called behavioral equation: V = f_I(U, O, K, E, M, S). Accordingly, it can also be assumed for (successful) learning that both characteristics of the person and attributes of the current learning situation influence the learning behavior. However, Schiefele and Pekrun’s definition lacks the emotional component, even though this has proven to be quite relevant in coping research and research on socially self-regulated learning, especially when dealing with challenges (e.g., failures or conflicts in learning groups) [14, 15].

To understand at which points in the process of self-regulated learning the instruments already developed start, the relevant models of the SRL are presented. For an overview of the current state of research on models of SRL, please refer to the literature [11, 16].

In our understanding of self-regulated learning processes, we follow the assumptions of process models first formulated by Zimmerman [10, 17] and later taken up by Schmitz and Wiese [18, 19]. Process models emphasize the dynamic and phased features of self-regulated learning. Three superordinate phases are distinguished: the Preaction Phase, the Action Phase, and the Postaction Phase. It is assumed that these phases follow each other sequentially, thereby allowing for the transfer of experiences from one learning situation to the following learning situations [18, 19].

In the Preaction Phase, learning goals are formulated and possible learning strategies are planned to achieve these goals. Planning, based on characteristics of the situation and the task, involves, on the one hand, characteristics of the task and the situation. On the other hand, it focuses on individual beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy expectations) and emotional and motivational preconditions [18, 19].

In the subsequent Action Phase, the previously planned learning strategies are implemented. Here, volitional processes for maintaining/optimizing the execution of actions are central [18, 19]. Learning strategies can be very diverse and relate to the different components of the behavioral equation above. Here, too, there are different conceptions. However, there is a relatively large degree of agreement concerning the following distinction (for example see [11, 20]): First, cognitive strategies are mentioned here, which include dealing with concrete learning content; these include elaboration strategies, organizational strategies, and repetition strategies. In addition to cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies relate in particular to planning, self-monitoring, and regulation of learning processes. Both are often referred to as primary strategies in the literature. In addition, so-called support strategies (also called secondary strategies) are mentioned, which mainly include providing resources/resource-based learning strategies and self-management activities to organize, support, and shield learning activities and capture the availability of resources [11, 20].

Suppose we once again focus on the metacognitive strategies that seem to be central in the self-regulation process, then according to Wirth and Leutner [21], three essential strategies can be identified: (1) goal setting, in which, considering available resources and task demands, learning goals are derived (2) the planning of the learning processes, in which (potentially) suitable learning strategies are selected based on one’s knowledge about specific strategies and taking into account the task characteristics, and (3) the monitoring, with which one’s learning processes can be continuously observed and evaluated, to then be able to adapt them in the sense of the process model presented above [21]. Monitoring in the sense of self-observation is also particularly emphasized by Schmitz and Wiese [18]. In a model developed by Landmann and Schmitz [22], the authors introduce self-monitoring as an independent dimension that considers specific aspects of self-monitoring at different levels. Thus, self-monitoring takes place in or parallel to all three phases of the self-regulated learning process. This can also explain how, for example, the execution of individual learning actions can be reflected upon promptly and adapted if necessary, or, in a longer-term perspective, learning patterns or learning goals can be adjusted as well [22].

In the third phase of the self-regulation process, the Postaction Phase, there is an assessment of the achievement of the learning goals. This also involves reflection on the causes of the results and findings obtained from this phase can be considered in the Preaction Phase of a new learning unit [18].

2.3 Collaborative learning and self-regulated learning

It is striking that in these models, the social characteristics listed above in the behavioral equation as relevant for behavior and thus also for self-regulated learning—are not explicitly named. For a long time, research on self-regulated learning has focused on individual processes [23]. Only in the last two decades has this broadened to include group processes in collaborative learning settings. As a result, there has been a significant increase in studies of socially shared regulated learning (SSRL) in this context.

Models of self-regulation [10, 16, 18], initially developed for individual self-regulated learning, can also be applied to SRL in collaborative learning settings. The research group around Hadwin and Järvela [24, 25] developed, based on the self-regulation model of Winne (cf. overview article on the SRL model by Panadero [16]), a model of SSRL. The working group around Järvelä and Hadwin [25] distinguishes three levels of regulation: Self-regulation, co-regulation (CoR), and socially shared regulation (SSR). In doing so, they consider it central to emphasize that “The nuanced use of these terms [social regulation, interpersonal regulation] to distinguish CoRL and SSRL from SRL is often misinterpreted to imply self-regulated learning is not a social mode of regulation. In contrast, we have always positioned self-regulated learning as a social process influenced by and influencing social context” ([24], p. 93). In collaborative learning settings, self-regulation is required not only during one’s learning process but also during regulative processes and is necessary for the interactive learning processes with the other group members. This applies in all phases of the learning process, i.e., via the development of a common understanding of the learning task, the formulation of shared goals, the joint implementation of these goals through learning actions, and collaborative evaluation and feedback processes during and after a learning phase, and in particular also to the motivational and emotional challenges that may arise when difficulties or obstacles arise in mastering/fulfilling the learning task. There are few findings on these two aspects (even for SRL) [14, 15, 26] and further research is also needed for collaborative interaction in face-to-face as well as digital learning environments.

In German-speaking countries, to our knowledge, there has been little empirical research on SSRL. Melzner et al. [27] combine regulated learning approaches with the SSRL in CBCL, from which they derive a model in which, starting from an individual perception of the problem, individual and co-regulated and socially regulated processes can be used to overcome the challenges. An article by Schoor, Narciss and Körndle [28] deals mainly with questions concerning the taxonomy of different species of SSRL and Schoor presents a coding scheme for SSRL [29].

Overall, it can be noted that a substantial proportion of studies on SSRL have focused on student samples (for example [14, 27, 30, 31, 32]). Significantly less research exists on children and adolescents (for example see [33, 34], which is surprising in that SRL research, in particular, focuses on this group with the argument that self-regulatory skills should be learned as early as possible and promoted as appropriate. However, little is known about how specific processes of SSRL affect learning outcomes [24]. One reason could be that cooperative or collaborative learning settings are used less frequently in more “traditional” classroom settings, as they are presumably practiced in most schools. However, the existing studies indicate, that sustainable learning processes might be related to collaborative learning settings and that significant learning successes can be recorded in face-to-face as well as digital cooperative learning settings [33, 34, 35, 36].

2.4 Consequences for the pedagogical approaches

Due to what has been written so far, changes are needed in the learning environment and the pedagogical support of the learning process. The learning environments must create cooperation in learning and simultaneously, the development paths of the students should be individual. In terms of the Zone of Proximal Development, learning environments for all students must provide repetitive, reinforcing, and challenging opportunities to allow students to develop toward the Zone of Proximal Development. Since development is not predictable, we believe that reconstructing each student’s learning and developmental path is necessary to provide individualized learning environments. Such a reconstruction requires data that go beyond the one-dimensionality of a grade, which raises the question of how an alternative instrument should be designed that allows for a differentiated view of learning processes [37, 38, 39].

At the same time, this is insufficient because even good documentation only allows a reconstruction but cannot make any deduction for the future. To align the learning environment as closely as possible to the learning and development situation of the students, the student’s perspective is needed. The ideal situation is when students are increasingly empowered for their learning process, can reflect on it and consequently help to shape it from their point of view. This necessarily entails increased self-activity in the learning process. This co-creation of the own learning process by the students is not without preconditions but demands once more to make the constant cycle of action with its complex and interactively interconnected components (cf. behavioral equation) positively experienceable for the students in the pedagogical accompanying and support process. This means considering each student’s needs, interests, goals, self-efficacy, self-esteem, deliberate strategies, and emotional techniques [40, 41].

This implies for pedagogical action that the continuum of external and self-control must be mapped in school processes and the instruments used. In concrete terms, this means that with a continuous withdrawal of external regulation, increasingly self-regulatory procedures can/must be applied. At the same time, however, externally regulated processes are indispensable for enabling successive self-regulation. The assumption of exclusively self-regulated or externally controlled learning action cannot be upheld since the situation’s characteristics and the person’s characteristics are consistently effective in individual learning processes [12].

Furthermore, pedagogical action should strengthen the perception of self-regulation without leaving the students to their own devices. This is not least by finding a balance between knowledge practice—knowledge development—knowledge transformation—knowledge creation [42].

2.5 Basic features of the university school Dresden

These pedagogical consequences were the initial thoughts for developing the school experiment at the University School Dresden. Since September 2019, the Technical University of Dresden has been designing the 15-year school experiment University School Dresden. This means: Scientists at TU Dresden have developed a theory- and evidence-based concept for schools, the effectiveness of which is to be proven. For 3 school years, instruments for establishing more self-regulated (digitally supported) learning have been anchored in it [3, 43]. The University School Dresden concept focuses on facilitating individual development paths in cooperative learning processes [3]. For this purpose, concrete concepts and the instruments still to be discussed were developed on one hand.

On the other hand, the entire school process was adapted to this on the organizational level: At University School Dresden, children learn from the first grade onwards in cross-grade groups in project-oriented lessons [43], which plays a central role. There are hardly any classical subjects on the timetable; the day is structured according to specific learning formats. From Year 4 onwards, the school day begins with the self-organization phase, i.e., in terms of the process model of self-regulation, the Preaction Phase, in which planning of the daily learning units takes place utilizing a Logbook (cf. 3.2). This is followed by studio work of 1.5–2 h, in which the students work very individually on self-selected learning content (similar to learning office work). This studio work is supported by learning guides² and takes place in an interdisciplinary manner, i.e., the science subjects are combined in the NaWi studio, German and the foreign languages form the language studio, and history, geography, and ethics are the society studio. In the university school, the students work on learning modules during this time: Classical learning contents are methodically processed so that the students can acquire knowledge relatively independently. After a break of about one hour with breakfast and exercise follows the project work of 1.5 h to 2 h. In this phase, the students work in smaller project groups of 4-5 Students: inside on a project. For the organization of the project work, the students use the Lapbook (cf. 3.3). After the subsequent one-hour lunch break with lunch and exercise, there are two additional learning units of one hour, in which the students can continue to work on individual learning content in learning studios, but also take advantage of sports and artistic activities, as well as use these learning times for laboratory work or intensive language times.

While the morning learning workshops (studio work) vary daily concerning the subject areas (science, language, and society) but are fixed, the students can dial in individually for the afternoon learning times via a digital platform. This selection should be made according to the individual learning needs, which in turn are determined jointly between students and learning guides in regular development discussions and documented in the framework of the Learning Paths (cf. 3.1). The documentation of the learning modules worked on in the individual learning studios utilizing the Learning Paths creates transparency concerning the Learning Path of each student.

The development of the described aspects of the school concept and the instruments, among others, is carried out according to the approach of design-based research [44] in a co-constructive process between school practice and science [4, 45]. The following outline of tools for more self-regulated learning is the initial interim results from the collaborative development process.

3. Tools supporting the development of self-regulated learning in cooperative learning environment

From the students’ point of view, the derivation so far can be summarized as follows: Implementing more self-directed rather than peer-directed learning in school practice requires tools that support students to

• Set learning goals for themselves,

• Learn and use learning strategies.

• Control their learning process using metacognitive strategies,

• Stabilize their learning motivation

(for example [46]).

In addition, pedagogical guidance in the learning process must change. In primarily externally controlled learning processes, an entire class’s learning is the same way. Accordingly, the determination of the goal of the learning process, the scope for shaping the learning activity, the control of the learning activity as well as the evaluation, and thus large parts of the regulation of the learning process lie in the control sovereignty of the teacher. In more self-regulated learning, the aspects mentioned above shift to the learner. On the one hand, this requires instruments for the students that enable them to control their learning processes in a self-regulated manner. On the other hand, teachers need tools that help them to understand the student’s learning process in order to intervene in a supportive way when necessary. In the following, three instruments developed in the university school to support the school actors in the abovementioned aspects are presented: the Learning Paths, the Logbook, and the Lapbook.

3.1 Learning paths

The starting point for developing the learning pathways is the thesis that the learning environment teachers develop can only be as good if the teacher understands the students’ learning situation. Understanding the learning situation does not mean evaluating or judging, but rather, in the sense of rehistoricization [47], a recognition, then an explanation, and, in the third step, an understanding. To understand the learning processes of all students, the first step is to analyze and reconstruct the individual development in the context of the respective subject structure (e.g., mathematics, German, etc.). In a subsequent second step, explanatory knowledge is to be developed based on the reconstruction of the individual situation so that understanding is made possible [48]. This understanding sets the framework for pedagogical action. It is the starting point for developing pedagogical action options (e.g., classroom settings) necessary. In school practice, this processual perspective is more strongly integrated into pedagogical action by resorting to formative assessment/diagnostics. However, these approaches to pedagogical diagnostics often aim to micromanage each lesson, coupled with “self-assessment” [49] on the part of the student. The tools used for this purpose are often small-step competency grids [50] that explicitly relate to the lesson’s content and are usually structured from the subject logic rather than the current developmental logic of the student. This contradicts the basic assumptions of the cultural-historical theory mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, that meaningfulness can only be developed through acquired meaning. Still, meaning cannot be inferred from meaning. Instead, the production of meaning takes place in an individual process in which the dialog with others is significant. Consequently, there is a need for another instrument that gives a structure without making a fixed determination of the developmental steps of the students. A tool was sought that would enable the documentation of the learning process for each student, making it understandable for both the learning guide and the students themselves. On the other hand, the instrument should also provide the students with an orientation for a self-regulated learning process. One initial solution is the Learning Paths we have developed. However, the instrument can also support the learning processes through external control by the learning guide.

A Learning Path exists for one subject (the subject matter) at a time. This subject matter is further differentiated into sub-subjects or sub-subjects that are to be acquired by the students. The easiest way to imagine a Learning Path for a subject/perspective is through a tree structure (cf. Figure 1). The appropriation process is divided into nodes. These nodes can build on each other in linear logic, or there are multiple nodes in a cloud. Then different contents or competencies are needed in the appropriation process. Still, they do not necessarily build on each other. Several of these node sequences also called Learning Paths, form a Learning Path [37].

Figure 1.

Logic of the learning paths.

Consequently, the Learning Path for a subject is initially pre-structured according to the subject-specific acquisition logic. Teachers and subject didactics decided which objectives/competencies build on each other and therefore have to be worked on linearly and which do not have to be performed consecutively. Concerning Figure 1, this means that 1.1 Node A and 1.2. Nodes B are not linear, i.e., first A, then B must be processed; they thus form a so-called “cloud” within which linear logic is suspended. Node C, however, follows in linearity the cloud with 1.1 Node A and 1.2 Node B and should be processed only after the previous cloud has been successfully processed. Another ordering principle in the Learning Paths—primarily so that they do not become too confusing when a discontinuous logic is applied in the Learning Path nodes—is age, which also maps a linear sense. This bears the risk of a predefined Learning Path to be worked through based on the present generation of the student. Therefore, Learning Paths must be able to document and control developments but not be the sole control element.

In practice, this means that if students choose learning modules (i.e., learning materials on selected subject content) as part of their project work that is linked to a Learning Path node outside the student’s age range, the students can still complete the learning module and thus also the Learning Path node, i.e., completed Learning Path nodes outside the given age range can also be filled in, just as some can. However, in the linearity of the Learning Path nodes, the preceding one has not yet been processed. Therefore, the ability to break the linearity in the Learning Path is imperative so that the factual structure logic does not counteract the appropriation logic of the student. Only in this way can the learning and development processes be aligned with the individual development paths of the students and not with the structural logic of the department.

Once the building blocks for the Learning Path nodes have been completed for each subject area, it is concluded with an associated building block test. This provides the learning facilitators with feedback on each student’s Learning Path. This way, the learning guides can trace individual Learning Paths for each subject area and offer targeted support in working on individual topics.

The Learning Paths are stored digitally, as this is the only way to ensure that they can always be used and kept up to date by both students and learning guides. Through monitoring, they can also be well integrated into development discussions with students and parents.

Related to grades 7 through 10, learning pathways need to allow for more beyond what is described: They must reflect different levels of requirements. In the spirit of an inclusive school, learning pathways should be able to differentiate without stigmatizing. Therefore, the Learning Paths are structured so that nodes cover the basics of the subject matter and are thus Learning Paths for all students—this corresponds to the completion of secondary school (cf. Figure 2). In addition, there are supplementary nodes for graduation after the 10th grade (RS) or the Abitur (GYM) at the respective Learning Paths. Only with this logic can the students learn what corresponds to their development potential and that they are not stigmatized. Because, as already formulated, the initiation of development processes requires tasks that lie in the individual’s Zone of Proximal Development.

Figure 2.

Schematic representation of learning paths according to required level differentiation.

The Learning Paths as documentation enable the respective student to learn what is relevant for them. This does not imply that everyone does what they want. Instead, the students decide in advance which Learning Path node they want to work on (e.g., because it is relevant to a specific project) and then complete it. They are also guided in selecting Learning Path nodes by the learning guide. Consequently, the Learning Paths, the Logbook, and the Lapbook are also tools for the students’ self-direction process. The Learning Paths are not a tool for direct collaboration, but because they document the individual, a design space is created for true collaboration on the common object [51].

3.2 Logbook

As explained in the self-regulated learning section, goal setting is particularly central in the Preactional Phase of the self-regulation process. This is of particular importance because, based on the formulated learning goals, a reflection and assessment of the learning successes can take place process-accompanying and recursively already during the regulation process in the Action Phase or in the Postaction Phase after an individual learning unit (cf the hierarchy model of Landmann and Schmitz [22]). Reflecting on one’s learning process is a complex act. Lompscher [52] discusses diverse developmental aspects concerning students’ reports of learning strategies in self-assessment tools (e.g., questionnaires), and considerations that might be transferred to reflection on self-regulated learning processes in general.

There is a Logbook at the University School to support the students in this phase of the SR process and to gradually lead them to an independent formulation of learning goals. The term Logbook originally comes from seafaring and describes a diary in which all essential observations during a ship’s voyage are entered so they can be retraced later if necessary [53, 54, 55]. The Logbook is used similarly at University School Dresden because it is intended to help students and learning facilitators document learning processes and make them comprehensible. Each school day begins before the first learning time with an entry of the individual learning goals for the current day in the student’s Logbook. Figure 3 shows a page of the Logbook for years 4–6.

Figure 3.

Illustration of a page of a logbook for grades 4–6.

The Logbook thus starts in the Preaction Phase and pursues the goal of enabling students to (better) structure their learning processes. This is because, coupled with the formulation of learning goals, the planning of learning actions also occurs in the Preaction Phase of SRL [11]. The Logbook can therefore be used after setting the learning objectives for the day in each learning time to visualize the relevant learning objective and to make plans for the current learning process, i.e., to select suitable methods, materials, learning partners, etc. The Logbook can also be used as a tool for the learning process. On the other hand, in the Postaction Phase, one’s learning process can then be described and traced. Thus, understanding one’s own learning process can be increasingly achieved. This favors the experience of self-efficacy in the learning process when learning goals can be assessed as achieved or at least partially achieved. In addition, it can be helpful—albeit only in the next step—for reflecting on one’s learning process, which can be used in a circular process for derivations and changes for future learning phases [18, 19].

To achieve these goals, it is essential to ask how the students should formulate individual learning goals to promote learning processes within the framework of an SRL optimally.

This formulation of learning objectives requires a detailed analysis of the task(s) by the student in question [11]. Based on this, learning objectives for the learning unit are derived. Following the explanations of the students’ Learning Paths, it becomes clear that the learning tasks and, thus, the learning goals are highly individual, depending on which node or Learning Path and, therefore, which learning module the students are currently in. In addition, the learning workshops are interdisciplinary, so that in the area of geography, one student may be working on modules from the area of geography while other students are working on modules from the area of history.

Ideally, the individual learning objectives cover all learning times, i.e., one objective is formulated for each learning time; otherwise, at least three learning objectives should be specified for two learning times. The students should write the objectives in complete sentences to achieve good comprehensibility of the purposes (e.g., for feedback on the learning process by the learning guide) and to promote the ability to express themselves in writing. The formulation of the objectives should be based on the SMART criteria, considered relevant in the literature (also concerning the assessment of the achievement of objectives) [11, 56, 57, 58, 59]. In addition to the SMART criteria for goal formulation, other ideas about which factors should be considered (for example [60]) were not used for the Logbook in the University School Dresden.

Which criteria of goal formulation are summarized under the acronym SMART?

First, the goals should be Specific, i.e., they should be formulated as clearly as possible [58, 61]. For the entries in the Logbooks, it is therefore not sufficient to name only the subject perspective (e.g., biology) or additionally the specific topic (e.g., my body); in the best case, the students can also name the specific module (e.g., the senses) and formulate how much they want to work on from the module today (e.g., 2 tasks and 1 video).

Goals should also be formulated to be objectively Measurable, as this is particularly relevant for the subsequent assessment of goal achievement. This also shows how closely the criteria are related in specific and measurable terms. For the example formulated above (Biologie→Mein Körper→Die Sinne→2 Tasks & 1 Video), this is true because when the goal is achieved, it can be verified that 2 tasks and 1 video have been completed.

The goals should be Realizable to enable the students to experience self-efficacy. However, this is only possible if the goals can also be achieved through one’s actions [61].

Another characteristic is Terminated, in that the goal is to be achieved within a specified time frame. This is predetermined from the outset by the time limits of the individual learning units in the University School Dresden, so this does not have to be specially formulated by the students.

Finally, in the SMART acronym, we find the “A”. Different sources have different meanings for this [58]: These include Achievable- Attainable- Acceptable- Attractive- Challenging- Assignable. Achievable and Attainable are closely related to realizable and enable the experience of self-efficacy in self-regulated learning processes. After all, goals are only achievable if they are fundamentally something that can be implemented with the available resources. This connects to the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development [7], according to which learning goals, and thus learning tasks, are ideally oriented toward learning actions that promote the individual’s development from what has already been accomplished independently (Zone of Current Development) to what can be achieved with some assistance from others (Zone of Proximal Development). Goals for which the individual largely depends on outside support would thus not be achievable.

Goals should be Accepted insofar as the student agrees with the goals for themselves, i.e., considers them relevant to their learning process [58]. This can be assumed to be the case when students can formulate their learning goals individually; for goals set by teachers, as tends to be the case in traditional school contexts, this is undoubtedly much less the case. Closely related to this is Attractive because it can be assumed that learning objectives are attractive primarily when learners can recognize an added value concerning their learning process when the learning objective is achieved. An attractive goal should also be formulated positively [58]. In addition, learning objectives should be challenging, i.e., not too easy or difficult. This also ties into the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, according to which an optimal learning goal is formulated to enable learners to move into the Zone of Proximal Development.

The criterion Assignable is particularly relevant in contexts of collaborative learning. Here, in addition to a standard formulation of goals, it should also be determined who is responsible for achieving them. Depending on the learning objective, these can be individuals, small groups of people, or an entire project group.

In summary, this extends the original SMART criteria to SMA⁵RT criteria:

• Specific

• Measurable

• Achievable/Attainable—Acceptable—Attractive—Ambitious—Assignable

• Realistic

• Terminated

Immediately after the formulation of the objectives, they are viewed by the facilitators. This gives the facilitators an overview of what the students are working on. At the same time, it provides the learning guide the opportunity to give feedback to the students on their goal formulations and, if necessary, to support them with targeted questions to find suitable individual learning goals or to adjust the formulated plans according to the SMA⁵RT criteria, e.g., if they seem to be too general or too easy/difficult for the student. In the long term, the ability to formulate realistic goals should be further developed in the students with increasing use of goal formulation according to SMA⁵RT and a linked review of goal achievement.

Following the feedback from the learning guide and, if necessary, adjustments to the learning objectives, the learning objectives formulated individually by the students are worked on in the individual learning times (Action Phase of the process model of the SRL).

At the end of each learning unit, an assessment of goal achievement is then made (Postaction Phase). This is done for grades 4–6 using a so-called “target” (cf. Figure 3). The students can divide the target into as many parts as the learning objectives have been formulated (cf. Figure 3). For each learning objective, an assessment is now made as to whether the learning objective has already been started actively achieved through learning actions. If this is the case, then the outer ring can be painted. Suppose you have not only started working on the ring, but have already achieved a (significant) part of it but have not yet completed it. In that case, you can also paint the middle ring. The inner ring can then be filled when the learning objective has been achieved. In this way, it is made clear by visual means how successful the achievement of objectives has been for the individual learning objectives and the learning objectives of the entire day as a whole. The assessment of goal achievement can also be used the following day to revisit goals that may have only been partially worked on or goals that have been started. In this sense, experiences from previous learning processes are thus integrated into new learning units, as assumed by the process model [18].

The students use one color for each of the three perspectives (science, language, and society) to work on the target, i.e., the documentation of the achievement of learning objectives in science is marked with blue, for language yellow, and for society orange. In this way, the students also see the balance of their chosen subjects/objects, e.g., when blue is repeatedly seen more often than yellow and orange on the target.

In addition, the students can design their Logbooks individually (e.g., drawings on the cover page and pages). We believe this helps to ensure that students embrace the Logbook as a personal tool to support self-regulated learning.

3.3 Lapbook

A Lapbook is a tool students use to design their project work [43] between grades 4–6 to acquire competencies in project-based learning. These competencies include, for example, time management, process management, and self-structuring.

The Lapbook is a tactile and visual element supporting the project process. The students design the Lapbook themselves: In the beginning, there is only a white A3 sheet of paper in front of them. First, the Lapbook is divided into three parts according to the division of the project work phases: Idea generation, planning, and project processing (cf. Figure 4). The first phase, association and imagination (red phase), aims to collect ideas and develop researcher questions. Next, the subject perspectives (e.g., linguistic or scientific) and methods (e.g., experimentation, questioning) that can be used to answer the formulated questions are determined. A classic applied method for associating is the ABC list.³ From the determination of these mentioned aspects and the required resources, the students derive a schedule, which is also mapped. For this purpose, the students stick the weeks with the days of the week under the color blocks according to how many weeks are planned for the respective phases by the individual student.

Figure 4.

Illustration of grade 4–6 Lapbook.

This schedule is then always filled in daily. At the end of the red phase, the students present their first project sketches to each other. Then, facilitated by the facilitator, students come together based on a common theme so that smaller groups now work together to form a project group.

This small group starts with the yellow research and planning phase. In this phase, with the help of further research and precise planning of the project process by the students, the project plan is further developed and recorded in the Lapbook through other additions. There is a lot of gluing and folding in the book. In addition, the project objectives are further refined in consultation with at least one project partner. This more detailed planning phase determines when work assignments can also be divided between students. In this way, students learn the division of labor, again recorded in the Lapbook.

When the project group, taking into account the individual schedules of the group members, has created a standard detailed plan for further action, the project moves to the third phase—implementation and presentation. In this phase, specific planning of the individual project steps occurs daily. For this purpose, the Logbook already described above is now used even more intensively by the students for their project work, in which project-specific learning objectives are formulated. Especially the practice days, where work on the creation of project products is done together in the project group, needs more detailed planning between the members of a project group and requires them to structure themselves over a more extended period than the directly following learning time. This is because the planning for these practice days must go beyond the concrete planning on the practice day in the medium term so that all the necessary materials, rooms, etc., are available on the practice day. Therefore, in contrast to the Logbook, which mainly focuses on the daily individual learning goals from the learning studio and project work, the Lapbook primarily supports self-regulated learning with a medium/long-term perspective over several days (sometimes weeks).

With the visual structuring and documentation of the individual project phases, the Lapbook supports the students in planning the project processes and understanding and reflecting on them. This documentation of one’s learning and work process in the cooperative project work phase is systematically guided and developed in grades 4 through 6. Together with the Logbook and learning pathways outlined above, students and facilitators can gain an understanding of the individual learning and development process while supporting students in an increasingly self-regulated learning process.

4. Implications for teacher’s actions for supporting this kind of learning arrangements

First of all, it should be noted that the methods described do not guarantee the implementation of more self-regulated learning. However, there are already indications in the literature which general aspects teachers should consider when promoting self-regulated learning processes. For example, Zimmermann [10] mentions here, among other things, that students should be given choices for tasks and methods and learning partners. In addition, teachers should promote specific goal setting, teach learning strategies, and encourage self-evaluation of achievement. Parents and colleagues [11] also cite tasks based on the student’s interests and the provision of choices to enable exploration, planning, action, and learning, as well as regular and informative. Motivational feedback to encourage students to complete the task is an essential aspect of the pedagogical activity to promote self-regulated learning. Suppose one follows the explanations of the three instruments presented by us. In that case, it can be stated that these aspects are the first implementation in practical school everyday life.

For the Learning Paths, the Lapbook and the Logbook to be effective, they must be continuously applied in everyday school life. The application processes must be standardized and completed according to the objectives. Therefore, for the three instruments, it will be explained once again how the learning facilitators can use them to support processes of self-regulating learning in students.

Learning Paths: The teachers must continuously maintain the creation (and adaptation, if necessary) of the individual nodes and Learning Paths for each subject area. The learning facilitators should pay attention to how the Learning Path nodes should be implemented in the context of learning content in the learning modules. In addition, the individual monitoring of the Learning Paths concerning the respective student should be carried out continuously by the teachers because only in this way can learning processes be discussed and reflected in the goal and development discussions with the students. This monitoring must be student-related and teacher-related to be able to continuously develop the quality of the support provided by the teacher.

Logbook: Using the Logbook requires, on the one hand, understandable and concrete instruction by the teacher, both concerning the formulation of the learning objectives and the assessment of the achievement of the goals utilizing the target. On the other hand, feedback on the formulated learning objectives by the learning guides is essential. This feedback should be based on the known criteria for feedback that promotes learning so that positive development can be achieved concerning self-structuring in one’s learning process and learning successes can be appropriately acknowledged. For the assessment of the achievement of objectives, after the students have first made this independently, the learning guide should then provide feedback to the student on the individual learning objectives to initiate an adjustment of the assessment utilizing targeted questions or hints, if necessary, and to support reflective processes.

Lapbook: Similar to the Logbook, keeping the Lapbook requires timely feedback from the teacher to the student and teacher-led reflection on the use of the Lapbook, as well as sustainability in the structure of using the Lapbook as a working tool.

As is clear from the descriptions of the use of these three instruments, the role of teachers changes in such a learning process more oriented toward self-regulation in cooperative learning settings. Teachers have to follow and demand processes and structures more than in a learning setting controlled by them, e.g., everyone fills out the Logbook in the morning, follows the rules of filling out the Logbook, and only the contents are different. While establishing the instruments in the University School Dresden, it becomes clear that not all teachers succeed in this follow-up to the same extent. Teachers need the necessary skills, such as time management, structuring their own work processes, and the ability to prioritize. Not least, to build these competencies, but also to understand the behaviors of students, teachers need reflective competencies.

5. Conclusion

All three instruments presented have been on trial in the university school for 2 to 3 years. Therefore, it is necessary for all actors involved in the school experiment [4] to constantly question the instruments used and further adapt the pedagogical processes associated with them. This does not argue against the devices developed so far but rather corresponds to the method of development determined at the beginning of the approach of design-based research (DBR) in terms of formative educational research [45, 62].

Different aspects play a role in the revision of the developed instruments. For learning pathways, for example, the amount of documentation is relevant to teachers. For practical usability, it would be necessary to find a measure that corresponds to the student’s learning process and, at the same time, takes into account the “control needs” of the teachers. Something similar can be reported for the Logbook and the Lapbook. Further adaptation is aimed at the best possible support for students and easy practical use by teachers. In this sense, what has been presented is an interim result. In addition to theory- and practice-based adaptations of the instruments, an implementation in a learning and school management software is planned so that the instruments can also be used digitally.

Finally, related to the project-oriented and collaborative approach of the school learning setting at the University School Dresden, we also focus on suitable instruments to support socially shared regulated learning. To promote socially shared regulated learning (SSRL), targeted intervention is needed because SSRL does not occur simply by learning cooperatively. Consequently, such an instrument must specifically support students in developing competencies at different levels of regulation (emotional, cognitive, and motivational) during the phases of SRL to learn together in a self-regulated manner successfully. Therefore the students’ focus should also be on identifying challenges or obstacles that might arise [63] and be provided with methods to support SSRL.

Acknowledgments

The previous results and presentations are based on cooperation with the University School Dresden. All actors are always ready for changes and further adaptations. They are also happy to give us tireless feedback on their ideas for further development.

We acknowledge financial support for the publication of this book by the Open Access Publication Fund of Saxon State and University Library Dresden (SLUB Dresden).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.