Of Erikson and Bandura

Bandura and Erikson seem to be the epicenter of social cognitive theory: especially, Bandura. Self efficacy, the belief (or lack of) in ones ability to cognitively succeed, should not be confused with self-esteem (although having a good self image does not hurt self-efficacy). Take myself for example, I have a fairly sizable ego: I feel good about myself! Yet, lately, my self-efficacy, especially in terms of school, has been lower than I anticipated. (Don't worry, I don't feel this for my Ed Psych class: I just plain procrastinated with this journal! ha!.). Part of it is that I've have tons to do, have many distractions, and I get these "I just can't do it" thoughts. What does this mean in terms of the text?

Bandura's model has three interdependent sections: Personal judgments, behavioral, and Environmental (there is a fourth factor, physical/psychological state in reference to health: you're efficacy goes down when you're sick). We have aspects that we can and can't control. So what are the factors that I can't control in my situation? Bandura cited behavioral factors like task difficulty as something as possibly beyond one's control (and that's not necessarily a bad thing). There's also an environmental aspect: I really can't control the fact that there's a poor environment in my other class which is the mandatory use of Blackboard discussion groups. I LOATHE Blackboard's discussion boards. It should be a primary example of poor interface design! I also can't control projects that are given to me at work and so I have to prioritize between getting paid and doing something for an "A." I'll choose getting paid first (and subsequently, "not fired")!

What I can control is how much time I dedicate to the class in question: if I absolutely need to use Blackboard, I should use it in short spurts. I could also do my classwork away from my main computer (which has all of my games on it!) and do it in an environment with less distractions. I could also post discussions that I find interesting (although, I'm not to fond of the subject). I can also control and important factor that Bandura cited: persistence. I may not like it, but I need to "suck it up." I can also do my work earlier in the day (not midnight!).

I think that's a good overview of my own efficacy. Now, self-concept is another issue! That's where Erikson comes in. Self-conceptualization is built over time, and it refers more to your feelings about yourself. Self-efficacy is a "Can I do" while self-concept is "How do I feel about.." (I borrowed the last idea from Frank Pajares and Dale H. Schunk's article on "Self-beliefs and School Success" (a wonderful monograph!). Erikson divided our life stages into self-conceptual stages: our self-concept changes over time and it can be matched to certain physiological/age phases. Since I'm 31, I'm somewhere in the "Intimacy vs. Loneliness" and "Generativety vs. Stagnation" stages (young adult and middle age stages). My self-concept is still in flux because I'm a) single b) trying to be productive/generate meaningful work. If I feel I'm not succeeding, then my concept of myself will change for the worse. Does this affect my self-efficacy? It could if I make judgments and behavioral choices based on not being able to find meaningful relationships or I feel I can not produce anything meaningful. However, I don't think that will happen. I guess we'll see how it turns out!

Reconstruction of Memory

I was at a robotics competition this last weekend for the FIRST Robotics St. Louis Regional and tomorrow I'm going to Chicago for FIRST Midwest regional robotics competition. At both events, I'm the the head referee and so there's a bit of pressure to perform: I need to make split second decisions when I perceive an infraction has occurred. Many times, I need to reconstruct events in my head rather quickly if the participants (who are high school aged students) have questions about my calls. Sometimes, my referee crew needs to reconstruct events (usually out loud) so that we can make the best decision as possible. I had a scorekeeper (who was keeping tract of balls the robots scored in a goal) who may have mistakenly reconstructed an event in her head (or she may have been distracted) and scored less balls in a goal for one team (apparently there is video of the robot scoring more). It was curious how she reconstructed the event because she was very verbal about it: not only did she recall scoring the balls going in, she remembered counting the balls in the can in which scored balls landed. Good enough for me and it would have probably been good enough for a jury! (The team lost the match by that one ball!)

In the book and in class, reconstructive memory, as its name implies, consists of smaller memories and impressions that are connected by an event: we use these memories and their connections to recall a memory. Now for the example I gave, it may also be called a flashbulb memory: although the event was probably not significant/emotionally charged enough to be considered "flashbulb." For education and for my scorekeeper, the reconstruction of memory is aided by engaging something that's meaningful. My scorekeeper, who did a great job, probably didn't feel connected to that moment like the students who designed and drove that robot. She saw many matches that day while the kids paid attention to their matches (30+ vs. 3-5 matches). I bet those students will be able to reconstruct that moment in their head for many, many years to come because it was the moment that lost them the game (although, realistically, they had plenty of other opportunities to "put it away."

And to go on a tangent, child led conferences, the CWC for another week, also reminds me of my robotics competition. In the competition, if the team has a problem with the refereeing, only the students may come to me to ask questions. I'm very impressed by how eloquent and assertive these kids can be! Several of them "know" me from the previous years and so I might be more approachable, but I don't feel any reluctance to approach me (ok, I can be curt at times, but I'm refereeing! I've got lots on my mind!). If more students were as outspoken and assertive as the teens who do FIRST Robotics, then we're definitely "on to something." From this, I would wholeheartedly support child led conferences!

Chapter 5 Retrieval Processes

I have a hard time remembering people's names: I know it's more of an encoding problem, but honestly, this a problem with people I have known very well! If I don't see them for a while (from 3 months to a year or longer), I'll recognize their face and recall all sorts of weird, esoteric facts about them, but when it comes to their name, I draw a blank! In college, I left for the summer having a crush on this one girl, let's call her Allison (because I'm not 100% sure that's her name anyway!). When I came back to school three months later, I bumped into her at a party, and we talked for quite a bit: but I couldn't remember her name! I asked one of my girl friends, and she just laughed at me, "Don't you have a crush on her?!" "Well, yea, but I haven't seen her in like 3 months!" This lends me to believe that I also have a retrieval problem!

McDougall's Threshold Theory actually made sense to me even though it's an outdated theory. If I apply this theory to my name conundrum, then it makes a bit of sense. "[The] 'threshold' hypothesis held that both recognition and recall performance depend on the strength of information in memory" (Bruning, 98) The two threshold levels, recognition and recall, differ only in this "strength of information" where recognition required less information strength than recall. Therefore, my brain assigns less information strength to names than other pieces of information like computer parts , cool game button combinations, and faces.

However, chapter 5 goes on to explain how memory is a bit more complicated than that. In the dual process model of recall, recall and recognition are no different: one requires "much more extensive memory search" than the other. Recall and recognition of memories need points of access: the more points of access, the easier it is to recognize or recall the correct answer. The example given in the chapter: "Who was president after Madison?" and "Was Monroe the president after Madison?" The first question is pure recall as it offers no other mental clues to search ones memory except Madison's name. The second question tests recognition as it gives you two points of access: Monroe and Madison. With more points of access, one could search his or her memory in a much more extensive manner: it is a lot easier to remember that Monroe came after Madison instead of having to just recall the name of Madison's successor.

As for my name retrieval problems, I don't think either model "helps" me with my problem. Although with the dual process model, I might not be recognizing all of my points of access: I may need to recall different things associated with that person...I don't think it's a stretch, but I really do think my problem is an encoding/practice problem (where I should take time everyday to think about the people I know, and maybe look at pictures, etc., to keep my memory fresh.)

More on Self-regulation

Since self-regulation was my Class Within a Class topic, one can't blame me for writing more on this topic. It's just very fascinating to me: especially since my self-regulatory skills aren't up to snuff (especially when I am in front of computer). In fact, the weekend before last my computer died on me: I know, I felt cold and put out! Fortunately, like any good geek, I have an old computer that I can fire up to satisfy my internet addiction (especially those political and technology blogs!). It actually ran really well after spending a lot of time tweaking it! For my dead computer, I decided to not replace the broken parts and start from scratch: I bought a new motherboard, processor, video card, power supply, and case. I really enjoy building my own computers and the new case I got is gorgeous (click here to check it out). Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I was so distracted by not having my main computer that I got little or nothing done! And when my new computer was put together, I had to put it through its paces by playing it!

All of this reminds me of a website I found while putting together my self-regulation CWC presentation: it's a website for teachers who teach self-regulation to high aptitude students. Even though it's for grade school kids, I think anyone who has high aptitude but little self-regulatory skills could learn a bit! The Increasing Academic Achievement Study being conducted by The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut put together this training module for teachers. Here's an example of a subsection of their "Study and Learning Strategies" module:

• Keep a homework book to record upcoming assignments, projects, tests, and events.
• Have a designated two pocket travel folder in which you label one side as "To Do" and the other as "Done." Keeping all your important notices and papers in one place saves you time.
• Create reminder checklists, one called "at school" and one "at home."
• Keep all handouts and papers in chronological order in your subject notebooks.
• Clean out your locker and bookbag on a regular basis (once a week is a good start).
• Pack your bookbag each night before you go to bed, making sure that you include all of your homework.
• At home, put your bookbag in the same place every day.

It may seem basic, but for anyone, these are all good suggestions! The "Time Management and Organization" module is also very good! I think as educators and students we need take a course/class in self-regulation: this includes those of us who have high aptitude but are distracted easily! I think as I get further into my study of IDLT, I'm going to have to really go over my time management and organizational strategies.

Effort and Cognition

At the end of Chapter 4 there are some interesting insights into what we generally call "intelligence." Do not most people believe that intelligence is an innate ability? I can honestly say that my thoughts on intelligence and what it means to be intelligent have fluctuated over the years. It's probably due to the people I'm around: I've known some terribly bright people who seem blase about their profound ability to recall and synthesize information. But then, I've been around people who work hard to earn the right to be called intelligent: they may not be as expressive as those who seem innately smart, but you can tell the "hard workers" have a firm grasp on what they're talking about. It comes down to a phrase I've knocked around my head and in conversations: "It's a willingness to learn." I don't see myself as smart, but I'm willing to learn (now, whether I'm willing to do all these cool generative exercises is another matter).

It's this willingness to learn that the latter half of Chapter 4 focuses on: metacognitive monitoring and regulation of cognition. I enjoy knowing what I know and I fail to see why other people don't enjoy this. I want to know why and how I formed my opinions. But does this make me intelligent or just introverted? On page 83, there's a key insight: "Metacognitive monitoring also appears to be unrelated to aptitude." This sentence ties into what I had been talking about in the previous paragraph: if you're aware of what you know, you'll have a head start on others who may be "smarter" than you as you're willingness to learn is higher. But I haven't answered my question and maybe I should rephrase it: am I smart or introverted? I think the difference is in action and what you're willing to do with it. Although I do think I have above average ability, I think I'm more introverted than smart because even though I'll read/learn many things, the true measure of intelligence is forming a real life representation (a generative activity) of that knowledge. For some reason, I balk at these generative activities. This will lead nicely into my next post: self-regulation!

Chapter 4 Encoding

I remember studying for vocabulary tests as a kid. I would have my list of vocab words, I would read them over and over again, then I would give it to my mom, and she would quiz me on them. She would quiz me until I spelled and defined the words correctly. When we did this bit of rehearsal encoding, it worked well enough for me to pass with good marks. I don't really think my parents or teachers tried to teach us any encoding strategies. Well, let me take that back: encoding tricks that didn't involve songs. It wasn't until middle school, when the concepts became more abstract and difficult to remember, that encoding tricks became prevalent. The one that stands out the most in my mind was ROYGBIV: the mnemonic for the colors in the spectrum.

Today, I really don't use encoding strategies as a matter of practice. If I do, it's the Method of Loci: I locate ideas/numbers/names spatially. For example, the grocery list that we had Dr. Lavele memorize, I can somewhat recall due to where the items were on the list. There were two columns of five items, and on top of the second column were condoms and dill. On the first row on the bottom, we listed beer. The middle right we listed celery, and middle left was tampons. Granted, since I'm writing this way after the fact, and as a class, we have gone over this twice (and dill was my suggestion): so, there's some circumstances here that might not support my claim. But I really do think I'm a spatial encoder. Next weekend, I'm going to Chicago to referee a robotics competition. I've been to Chicago several times, and as for any place I've visited, I can find my way around rather easily because I'm constantly making a little map in my head. The first thing I do when I land in a new place: I figure out where North is. With this bit of information, I'm able to orient myself and not worry about getting lost (I actually enjoy the challenge of getting lost!). When I take tests, I recall information from books by remembering where it was in the book and its location on the page. If I wanted to augment this ability, I would need to practice placing information chunks in a more abstract spaces: houses seem popular...I think I might use a computer as I'm just "at home" working with them. Especially if I want to encode Cognitive Psych information: a computer metaphor/encoding model, would be perfect!

Other methods that I might want to try is the peg method: I found myself reciting "pegs" just now after I thought about recalling our class grocery list. The link method is very visual: I could see myself using mental images to remember a list of objects interacting with each other. But when all is said and done, it comes down to effort: am I willing to put in the practice to enhance my encoding abilities?