Irene van der Spoel, 2018
Self-directed teams are gaining popularity in organisations (Glenn, Snyder, Dahnke & Kuether, 2016), and are often set up because it has been found that it is linked to, amongst other things, increased productivity, job-satisfaction, and organisational commitment (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhil, & Richards, 2000). Self-directed teams are also known as self-managing teams, self-regulating teams, or autonomous teams. In this research, these are seen as synonyms, however, self-directed teams will be the used term to avoid confusion. The definition of self-directed teams for this research is groups of individuals with a diversity of skills and knowledge, who have the collective responsibility to plan, manage, and execute tasks independently to reach a common goal (Magpili & Pazos, 2018; De Jong, De Ruyter, & Lemmink, 2004).
To enable this, according to Caramanica, Ferris & Little (2001), all group members determine priorities, solve problems, divide workloads, and cross-train each other. The role of team leader may rotate, to generate shared responsibility. According to research, characteristics of self-directed teams are shared responsibility, autonomous decision-making and problem solving, and self-determined leadership (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, Zenger, & Perrin, 1990). This is confirmed by two other studies, who claim that key in well-functioning self-directed teams are shared responsibility and considerable discretion for the conducted group work (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Batt, 2004). The main difference between other team structures and self-directed teams, is that self-directed teams tend to exert substantive influence on work-related decisions (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Levine & Tyson, 1990). The adoption of self-directed teams is often interpreted as a signal that the organisation values and appreciates their employees’ contributions (Allen, et al, 2003), which is frequently perceived by employees as an organisation’s commitment to them (Brown, Geddes, & Heywood, 2007). In the next paragraph, additional advantages and disadvantages of self-directed teams will be discussed.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Self-directed teams gained popularity in the 1950s. The first study on it was an evaluation of British coal-mining teams (Trist & Bamforth, 1951). When returning to specialised teams instead of self-directed teams, the productivity decreased, job satisfaction lowered, and absenteeism increased (Trist, 1981). Later studies found that self-directed teams had lowered violations of health and safety, generated positivity, decreased absenteeism, and increased productivity. This was due to a sense of autonomy concerning work methods, break periods, and work-related issues (Trist, Higgin, Murray, & Pollock, 1963). In addition, a longitudinal study by Cordery, Mueller, and Smith (1991) showed significantly higher scores of intrinsic motivation, work role autonomy, extrinsic satisfaction, and job commitment of employees working in self-directed teams, as opposed to employees working under traditional work structures.
The implementation of self-directed teams is often a result of innovation efforts, as well as ‘flattening’ organisations (Janz, 1999). It can counter the effects of vertical organisations, such as motivational dysfunction (Pearce, 2004; Pink, 2011), because promoting team autonomy helps enrich jobs and empowers team members (Kauffeld, 2006; Kirkman & Rosen, 2001). Apart from that, the increased flexibility in hierarchical structures within an organisation, is a promoting factor for undergoing organisational changes (Nonaka, 2007; Adler, 1993). Lastly, team members of a self-directed team tend to become more autonomous and, it tends to accelerate the members’ ability to respond to changes (Johnson, Hollenbeck, Scott DeRue, Barnes, & Jundt, 2013). An unintended negative effect of self-directed teams can be elevated levels of stress, due to increased responsibilities and peer pressure. This effect may be worsened if performance-based rewards are introduced (Roy, 2003; McCalman, 1998).
Promoting and impeding factorsThe implementation of self-directed teams concerns both promoting and impeding factors. These factors can be put into three categories: Factors concerning the organisation, the team, and the individual team member. First, the factors concerning organisation will be addressed.
In order to establish and develop self-directed teams, it is important to determine whether teams are ready to start this process (Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). Before setting up the teams, the initiator of the self-directed team ought to present a framework as to why self-directed teams will benefit their work, and how this will be established. The latter should contain ground rules. Apart from that, the support from management needs to be addressed, as well as the professionalisation it will require from the team. Thirdly, it is also important to set short-term objectives, in order to book quick, and early successes. Lastly, there ought to be room for suggestions, questions, and input from the team (Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). These factors can both impede and promote the commencement of self-directed teams, depending on how the aforementioned steps are carried out.
Before starting the implementation process of self-directed teams, an organisation must also consider whether the tasks carried out by the teams fit this organisational structure. Certain assignments are more suitable for self-directed team than others. Assignments that feature for instance high uncertainty (Cordery, et al., 2010), high task innovativeness (Patanakul, Chen, & Lynn, 2012), and low task routineness (De Jong, et al., 2004; Rousseau & Aubé, 2010), tend to be more appropriate for self-directed teams. Two other studies confirmed that the complexity of jobs and the uncertainty of assignments facilitates a self-directed team to perform (Powel & Pazos, 2017; Smith & Offodile, 2008).
In alignment with assignments, objectives need to fit the self-directed structures as well. A positive correlation has been found between clear organisational objectives and self-directed team performance (Wageman, 2001). Despite the responsibility to set its own goals, self-directed teams must adhere to the organisation and thus rely on feedback from the organisation to make sure their work is aligned (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). By determining clear objectives beforehand, disappointments can be avoided and self-directed teams can increase in performance (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hu & Liden, 2011).
Apart from the type of assignments and clear objectives, the culture of an organisation can influence the performance of self-directed teams greatly (Park, 2012). Promoting factors that can be found in an organisation’s culture are accountability, constant learning, risk taking, and continuous change (Hawkins, 2013; Phakathi, 2002). Organisations where risk-taking and experimenting is seen as a merit, often benefit from self-directed teams most, as opposed to organisations who solely focus on consistent quality (Sethi & Sethi, 2009). Apart from that, a top-down organisation of self-directed teams will often scrutinise the positive effects, and prevent teams from self-organising (Hoda, et al., 2011). Another part of an organisation’s culture that can jeopardise the performance of self-directed teams, are corporate policies. Autonomy and creativity can disappear when limits are too tight, and flexibility is decreased (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Rolfsen & Langeland, 2012). Research has shown that employees may avoid taking risks in fear of violating organisational norms (Phakathi, 2002; Tata & Prasad, 2004). This is also affected when managers or leaders are used to practising hierarchical organisational structures, and do not allow the self-directed teams to operate autonomously (Roufaiel & Meissner, 1995).
The role of managers and leaders in an organisation with self-directed teams does not disappear. Despite a self-directed team being fully autonomous, it often still requires an external leader or manager, who is not involved with daily tasks, but solely helps to manage team boundaries and provide direction when needed (Morgeson, 2005). The role of the external leader is to support the team and to adapt the approach to this support to the maturity of the team (Ayas, 1996; Powel & Pazos, 2017). Successful external leaders tend to monitor the self-directed team’s progress, and actively encourages the autonomous state of the team (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). This is done by promoting self-reflection, self-criticism, and self-reinforcement to members (Mcnair, et al., 2011; Short, 1993).
In short, for organisations to successfully implement and support self-directed teams, a clear aim for the implementation must be available. Assignments, objectives, and the culture of an organisation must fit the self-directed teams, and should be made known to the employees who are going to be part of the team. This should be done by the initiators of the teams. Managers and leaders outside of the team must not interfere with daily tasks, but are solely responsible for facilitation and enabling. In the next paragraphs, the impeding and promoting factors for self-directed teams on team level will be addressed.
The most important factor, as it occurs in the definition of self-directed teams is team autonomy. Team autonomy is the ability of the team to complete tasks as a team, without requiring leaders outside the team to intervene or assist. It is a key component in any successful self-directed team (Lee & Xia, 2010; Powell & Pazos, 2017; Rolfsen & Langeland, 2012). Certain factors may influence the desired level of autonomy. These factors can be a lack of skills or experience within the team (Conchúir, et al., 2009), insufficient support from management (McCalman, 1998; Powell & Pazos, 2017), team members who do not want to take on the role of a leader (Pais, 2010), rigid organisational structures (Scribner, et al., 2007), and negative peer pressure (Rolfsen & Langeland, 2012). These factors will be addressed more elaborately later on.
At the start of self-directed teams, the assembly of teams can have an effect on the productivity, efficiency, and effectivity of a team, and thereby its autonomous qualities. Research by Wax, DeChurch and Contractor (2017), has found that deep-level homogeneity may lead to inferior performance, and that teams based on friendship are oftentimes more successful. The latter can be achieved in practice by enabling self-assembly of teams (Wax, DeChurch, & Contractor, 2017). However, according to Fraser, Gunawan, and Goh (2013), the assembly of teams benefits more from a mix of skills than of friendship. Apart from that, the work experience of team members is also an important factor (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). A lack of work experience often leads to decreased team-based autonomy, which threatens the existence of self-directed teams (Pais, 2010; Conchúir, Holmström, Ågerfalk & Fitzgerald, 2009). Consequently, when a team consists of a mix in terms of work experience, the members with the most experience tend to lead the team (Eseryel & Eseryel, 2013). However, this is not always most beneficial, as work experience may also inhibit the ability to change, and thereby be innovative (Hoda, et al., 2013).
Apart from the assembly of a team, communication, training, and teamwork are the most important human factors in increasing level of service, and elevating delivery performance (Roper & Phillips, 2007). The communication ought to be formalised, open, and clear. In terms of teamwork, it is important that the team members’ skills complement each other. Three areas of skills are technical or functional expertise, problem-solving and decision-making skills, and interpersonal skills. These skills should overlap within a team, without overrepresenting one of the three (Roper & Phillips, 2007). The final key factor, training, is critical to enhancing knowledge and skills, but should also focus on human skills of being an effective team player. Training must be viewed as an opportunity for personal, group, and organisational development, which requires departments to commit to lasting, and effective training (Fraser, Gunawan, & Goh, 2013; Andrès, et al., 2015; Levi & Slem, 1995).
Effective training also enables another factor of successful implementation and functioning of self-directed teams, namely job rotation. Job rotation has been linked to increased team responsiveness to an organisation’s needs (Bernstein et al., 2016), elevated trust, and improved negotiation within the team (Cook, Gerrish, & Clarke, 2001). A requirement for job rotation is overlapping skills within the team (Perry, et al,. 2013), as has been mentioned in requirements for team assembly.
Apart from promoting factors, there are also factors threatening a healthy team. Especially when it concerns self-directed teams, unnoticed self-organised dynamics can have a deteriorating effect on the autonomy of a team. Although autonomy and independent decision-making should be promoted, self-organisational patterns can negatively affect an organisation or team when it is based on deeply-held perception of itself (Henning, 2008). These patterns are often a reflection of the system’s collective memory (Cilliers,1998), and its beliefs about its identity (Maturana, & Varela, 1980). When team members only operate within one team, and do not calibrate thoughts and processes, self-organised dynamics may cause suffering from ignorance, decreased corporate growth, and lowered employee satisfaction. This can be forestalled by communication within and outside teams. Apart from that, it is also important that these patterns are noticed, monitored, and mentioned by team members and managers. Awareness of negative self-organisation within teams majorly decreases the chances of affecting the organisation (Connaughton, Shuffler, & Goodwin, 2011).
Aside from self-organisation as an impeding factor, stress may contribute as well. This can be caused by the increased responsibility of self-directed teams, combined with augmented roles, and may lead to performance losses (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). Augmented roles may lead to members losing focus or having trouble prioritising tasks (Bernstein, et al., 2016).
In short, teams must focus on team autonomy, and stray from individual autonomy or self-organisation. For the assembly of teams, work experience, skills, and friendship must be taken into account. Both before and during the process of self-directed teams, communication is very important. The same goes for training. An impeding factor can be elevated stress levels in employees. This must be monitored by all team members of the self-directed team. Apart from requirements for organisations and teams, the individual team member needs to fit the self-directed teams as well. The promoting and impeding factors for individuals will be reviewed below.
Factors impeding the start of self-directed teams in terms of attitudes of individuals, can often be allocated to resistance to change (Liebowitz & Holden, 1995; Strydom, 2002). Reported reasons for this are a preference for structure, lack of experience, fear of decreased job security, aversion to increased workload, and fear of the unknown (Kim & McNair, 2010; Mcnair, et al., 2011; Thursfield, 2015). To reduce this resistance, a clear explanation of what self-directed teams include and how they operate, has shown effective. Another successful strategy is to show dissenting employees an example of operating self-directing teams, so they can see and possibly experience the direct effect (Roufaiel & Meissner, 1995).
Being able to take the lead as a member of a self-directed team is an important factor (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). In this, it is important to realise that communication is key when it comes to leadership (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). To be more precise, it is a critical and defining aspect of leadership (Fairhurst, 2007), and contributes greatly to adaptive performance (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000). Leadership behaviours within a self-directed team has been postulated a key factor for success in self-directed teams (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). High-performing self-directed teams tend to have individuals that display and exhibit more leadership behaviours than those in low-performing self-directed teams (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006). In self-directed teams, the role of a leader is often rotated, to increase a feeling of shared responsibility (Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). Shared leadership has also shown to have a positive effect on the performance of a self-directed team (McIntyre & Foti, 2013; Carte, et al., 2006), through increased awareness of fellow members’ roles and their significance to the team (Fausing, Jeppesen, Jønsson, Lewandowski, & Bligh, 2013).
Team members who take on the rotating role of team leader within the self-directed teams, must have certain skills and attitudes. Firstly, they ought to have expertise concerning the topic at hand (Banai et al., 2000; Eseryel & Eseryel, 2013), and they must be able to monitor performance quality (Pais, 2010). Apart from that, they are required to act as boundary spanners (Rolfsen & Langeland, 2012), a mentor (Hoda, et al., 2013), and a coach (Banai, et al., 2012). Helpful attitudes in successful leadership in self-directed teams, are delegating tasks when needed, and showing commitment to the team (Doorewaard, Geert, & Huys, 2002; Heffron & Rerick, 1997).
Leadership within a team is an important skill to acquire, but self-leadership can be even more important. Self-leadership is the team member’s ability to assign tasks, plan and schedule work, and to take initiative when problems arise (Noe, Hollenbeek, Gerhart, & Wright, 2007; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). In order to function within, and contribute to, a self-directed team, team members require to possess certain skills. Self-directed team members who complete their own tasks as well as team tasks effectively, were great contributors to the team’s process (Houghton, Neck, & Manz, 2003; Manz & Sims, 1987, 2001; Neck & Manz, 2007). Self-directing is often driven by self-discipline over behaviour, intrinsic motivation (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), and the ability to cope with frustrations and setbacks without letting it influence the process (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997). These skills tend to develop inconsistently over time, when partaking in a self-directed team (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Wageman, 2001).
In this process, it can be helpful to delineate external behaviour-focused rewards, and instead let the team members discover their internal drives and rewards. This can be done by introducing natural reward strategies (Neck & Houghton, 2006), to motivate themselves by noticing or embedding intrinsic rewards into their work. For instance, through determining the long-term effect of an action, or the short-term response of someone who is helped, even in mundane tasks (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Apart from that, employees can use positive self-talk, visual imagery of performance execution, and rational counterarguments for dysfunctional beliefs to increase self-regulation and self-efficacy (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). The combination of these three strategies, as displayed in Figure 1, lead to self-leadership; an important skill as a team member of a self-directed team (Millikin, Horn, & Manz, 2010).
Figure 3: Strategies Leading to Self-leadership (Millikin, Horn & Manz, 2010).
However, there is a major difference between self-leadership and individual autonomy. Individual autonomy can actually impede successful implementation of self-directed teams. The combination of low self-autonomy and high team-autonomy showed to be most successful and sustainable in self-directed teams (Langred, 2004; 2005). This problem becomes most apparent when team members make decisions without consulting the rest of the team (Moe, Dingsøyr, & Dybå, 2010). Apart from that, it may also have a negative effect on self-directed teams, because stressing individual autonomy entices the focus on individual tasks, rather than group assignments, which can hinder skill acquisition, cross-training and job rotation (Thursfield, 2015; Barney, Moe, Dybå, Aurum & Winata, 2009).
Self-leadership is an important skill, just as assignment-related skills and knowledge. Individuals partaking in a self-directed team, must have a variety of skills that can contribute to the team’s tasks (Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002), because if they lack required skills, they tend to harbour low expectations (Nicholls, et al., 1999) and focus on defending their job and reputation, rather than improving themselves (Hoda, et al., 2013). Apart from that, absence of required skills can offset a decrease in exercising autonomy, which is a key characteristic of self-directed teams (Mcnair, et al., 2011). Individuals with multiple skills increase the flexibility of a team and improve collaborative processes (Powell & Pazos, 2017; Wageman, 1997), which reap the most benefits when some skills shared by multiple team members (Perry, et al, 2013). To achieve this, time and resources to develop necessary skills must be available (Banai, et al., 2000; Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002).
As in any team, aside from aforementioned assignment-related skills, teamwork skills are incredibly important in self-directed teams as well (Powell & Pazos, 2017; Weis,1992). Even when all other factors are in place, the absence of teamwork skills can put a team in malfunction (Fazzari & Mosca, 2009). Sub-skills concerned with teamwork that are important for self-directed teams, are the ability to lead, communicate, and conduct meetings effectively (Banai, et al., 2000; Hoda, et al. 2013).
In short, a team member of a self-directed team must possess certain knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This starts with being open to change. Apart from that, shared, as well as rotating leadership, tends to have a positive effect on team performance, as long as the leader possesses the right skills. Apart from that, self-leadership determines the success of self-directed teams as well. This is one of the skills a team member must possess, aside from skills concerning the tasks the team must perform, and teamwork skills in general.
Conclusion and Implications
In conclusion, self-directed teams are teams with a diversity of skills and knowledge, who are collectively responsible and accountable for planning, managing, and executing tasks to reach a common goal. The main advantages of self-directed teams are increased job satisfaction, elevated motivation, and stronger resilience to changes. These effects can be countered if employees experience peer pressure or responsibility-induced stress.
Promoting and impeding factors for self-directed teams can be categorised on a(n) organisation, team, and individual level. On the level of the organisation, the structure and culture is important. Before the start of the self-directed teams, support from management must be made apparent, and both the tasks and goals of the self-directed teams must be clear beforehand. The tasks should also be low task routine, and high task innovativeness, in order for a self-directed team to flourish. Management can support the self-directed teams by staying clear of rigid frameworks and short-term deadlines. Apart from that, a requirement of self-directed teams is that the culture of an organisation sees experimenting and risk-taking as a merit. This can be supported by management through encouraging self-reflection, self-reinforcement, and self-criticism.
For a team, it is important to determine beforehand if the team is ready for self-directed teams. If this is the case, short-term objectives must be formulated, and the initiator should present a framework and elaborate on the benefits of self-directed teams. After this, the teams must receive lasting and effective training on being team players within a self-directed team. During this process, there has to be room for input, suggestions, and questions from team members. This is also important during the assembly of teams, where mix of skills, mix of work experience, and friendship need to be taken into consideration. In the establishment of self-directed teams, it is important to address and include job rotation, as well as team autonomy. When the teams are effective, communication within, as well as outside the team must be valued.
On an individual level, the employee must know beforehand what self-directed teams are and how they operate. Secondly, employees must possess or develop team player, leadership, and self-leadership skills. The professionalisation it requires from the individual, should be made known beforehand. Apart from that, the employee must be made aware of the fact that team autonomy is more important than individual autonomy.
Adler, P. (1993). The learning bureaucracy: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 111.
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M., and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), ‘The Role of Perceived Organizational Support and Supportive Human Resource Practices in the Turnover Process,’ Journal of Management, 29, 1, 99–118.
Andrés, M. R., Broncano, S. G., & Montoya Monsalve, J. N. (2015). Could innovative teams provide the necessary flexibility to compete in the current context? Cuadernos de Gestión, 15, 145-163. doi:10.5295/cdg.130446mr
Ayas, K. (1996). Professional project management: A shift towards learning and a knowledge creating structure. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 131-136. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(95)00080-1
Banai, M., Nirenberg, J., & Menachem, M. (2000). Leadership in self-managing organizations: Orpheus and a date plantation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 3-17. doi:10.1177/107179190000700301
Barney, H. T., Moe, N. B., Dybå, T., Aurum, A., & Winata, M. (2009). Balancing individual and collaborative work in agile teams. In P. Abrahamsson, M. Marchesi, & F. Maurer (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming (pp. 53-62). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01853-4_8
Batt, R. (2001). The economics of teams among technicians. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 1-24. doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00187
Batt, R. (2004), ‘Who Benefits from Teams? Comparing Workers, Supervisors, and Managers,’ Industrial Relations, 43, 1, 183–212.
Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016, July-August). Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/beyond-the-holacracy-hype?utm_campaign=harvardbiz&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Boonstra, J.J. (2008) Succesvol veranderen van organisaties. De Verandermanagementbox. Een reeks van twintig luister cd’s voor succesvol verandermanagement. Schiedam: Managementboek.
Brown, M., Geddes, L.A., and Heywood, J.S. (2007), ‘The Determinants of Employee Involvement Schemes: Private Sector Australian Evidence,’ Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28, 2, 259–291.
Caramanica, L., Ferris, S., & Little, J. (2001). Communication briefs. Self-directed work teams: use with caution. Nursing Management, 32(12), 77.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-276. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0
Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge: London.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes team work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasiexperiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43. doi:10.1177/001872679404700102
Conchúir, E. O., Holmström, H., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2009). Benefits of global software development: Exploring the unexplored. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 14, 201-212. doi:10.1002/spip.417
Connaughton, S., Shuffler, M., & Goodwin, G. F. (2011). Leading Distributed Teams: The Communicative Constitution of Leadership. Military Psychology (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 23(5), 502-527. doi:10.1080/08995605.2011.600147
Cook, G., Gerrish, K., & Clarke, C. (2001). Decision-making in teams: Issues arising from two UK evaluations. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15, 141-151.10.1080/13561820120039874
Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 240-258. doi:10.1002/job.657
Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 464–476.
Cotton, J., Vollrath, D., Froggatt, K., Lengnick-Hall, M., & Jennings, K. (1988), ‘Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes,’ Academy of Management Review, 13, 1, 8–22.
De Caluwé, L. & Vermaak, H. (2010). Leren veranderen; Een handboek voor de veranderkundige. Deventer: Kluwer.
De Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68, 18-35. doi:10.1509/jmkg.188.8.131.52790
De Witte, M., & Jonker, J. (2014). De kunst van veranderen. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Doorewaard, H., Geert, V. H., & Huys, R. (2002). Team responsibility structure and team performance. Personnel Review, 31, 356-370. doi:10.1108/00483480210422750
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human Relations, 55, 283-314.
Druskat, V., & Wheeler, J. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435−457.
Eseryel, U. Y., & Eseryel, D. (2013). Action-embedded transformational leadership in self-managing global information systems development teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22, 103-120. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.02.001
Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fausing, M. S., Jeppesen, H. J., Jønsson, T. S., Lewandowski, J., & Bligh, M. C. (2013). Moderators of shared leadership: Work function and team autonomy. Team Performance Management, 19, 244-262. doi:10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038
Fazzari, A. J., & Mosca, J. B. (2009). Partners in perfection. Human resources facilitating creation and ongoing implementation of self-managed manufacturing teams in a small medium enterprise. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 353-376. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20017
Fraser, K., Gunawan, J., & Goh, M. (2013). Facility management teams. Journal of Facilities Management, 11(3), 253-265. doi:10.1108/JFM-04-2012-0023
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331−362.
Glenn L. Taylor, Louis J. Snyder, Keith F. Dahnke & Gary Kuether (2016) Self-Directed R&D Teams: What Makes Them Effective?, Research-Technology Management, 38:6, 19-23, DOI: 10.1080/08956308.1995.11674302
Hawkins, B. (2013). Gendering the eye of the norm: Exploring gendered concertive control processes in two self-managing teams. Gender, Work & Organization, 20, 113-126. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00588.x
Heffron, B., & Rerick, R. (1997). Self-managed work teams at Harris Semiconductor, Mountaintop operations. IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, Cambridge, MA. doi:10.1109/ASMC.1997.630736
Henning, P. (2008). Self-organized patterns in the workplace: Obstacles to awareness. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(6), 733-742. doi:10.1002/sres.892
Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2013). Self-organizing roles on agile software development teams. IEEE Transactions on software Engineering, 39, 422-444. doi:10.1109/TSE.2012.30
Houghton, J., Neck, C., & Manz, C. (2003). Self-leadership and superleadership. In C. Pearce, & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership (pp. 123−140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851-862. doi:10.1037/a0022465
Janz, B. (1999). Self-directed teams in iS: Correlates for improved systems development work outcomes. Information & Management, 35(3), 171-192. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00088-3
Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Scott DeRue, D., Barnes, C. M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional versus dysfunctional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural feedback for self-managed teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 1-11. Doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.006
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1−56.
Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 1-21. doi:10.1348/096317905X53237
Kim, K. S., & McNair, L. D. (2010, October 27-30). Self-managed teaming and team effectiveness in interdisciplinary capstone design. 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC. doi:10.1109/FIE.2010.5673590
Kirkman, B. I., & Rosen, B. (2001). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 48-66. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)88449-1
Kirkman, B.L., and Rosen, B. (1999), ‘Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment,’ Academy of Management Journal, 42, 1, 58–74.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal,47, 385-399. doi:10.2307/20159588
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31, 513-529. doi:10.1177/0149206304272190
Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34, 87-114.
Leifer, R., & Mills, P. K. (1996). An information processing approach for deciding upon control strategies and reducing control loss in emerging organizations. Journal of Management, 22, 113-137. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(96)90014-8
Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1995). Teamwork in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29-42. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(94)00076-F
Levine, D.I., and Tyson, L.D. (1990), ‘Participation, Productivity and the Firm’s Environment,’ in Paying for Productivity, ed. A.S. Blinder, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, pp. 183–243.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Futing Liao, T. (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781412950589
Liebowitz, S., & Holden, K. (1995). Are self-managing teams worthwhile? A tale of two companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60(2), 11-18.
Magpili, N.C., & Pazos, P. (2018). Self-Managing team performance: A systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3-33. doi:10.1177/1046496417710500
Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,106−128.
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.
Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,97−108.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F., (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Vol. 42). D. Reidel Publishing Company: Boston.
McCalman, J. (1998). Self-managing teams in high technology manufacture: Overcoming technological barriers. Team Performance Management, 4(3), 93-112. doi:10.1108/13527599810222068
McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. (2013). The impact of shared leadership on teamwork mental models and performance in self-directed teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 46-57. doi:10.1177/1368430211422923
Mcnair, L. D., Newswander, C., Boden, D., & Borrego, M. (2011). Student and faculty interdisciplinary identities in self-managed teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 374-396. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00018.x
Millikin, J. P., Horn, P. W., & Manz, C. C. (2010). Self-management competencies in self-managing teams: Their impact on multi-team system productivity. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 687-702. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.001
Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52, 480-491. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497-508. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.497
Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 271-287. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.00
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 1–39.
Neck, C., & Houghton, J. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 270−295.
Neck, C., & Manz, C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence, 4th Ed. . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Nicholls, C. E., Lane, H. W., & Brechu, M. B. (1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico. Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 15-25. doi:10.5465/AME.1999.2210310
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P.M. (2007), Fundamentals of Human Resource Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Nonaka, I. (2007). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 85(7), 162–171
Orsburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., Zenger, J., & Perrin, C. (1990). Self-directed work teams: The new American culture. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Pais, C. L. A. (2010). Self-managed teams in the auto components industry: Construction of a theoretical model. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 16, 359-387. doi:10.1108/13527591011090646
Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous teams and new product development autonomous teams and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 734-750. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00934.x
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 47-57. Doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12690298
Perry, E. E., Jr., Karney, D. F., & Spencer, D. G. (2013). Team establishment of selfmanaged work teams: A model from the field. Team Performance Management,19, 87-108. doi:10.1108/13527591311312114
Petty, G. C., Doo Hun, L., Seung Won, Y., & Fontan, J. (2008). The effect of self-directed work teams on work ethic. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 49-63. doi:10.1002/piq.20022
Phakathi, T. S. (2002). Self-directed work teams in a post-apartheid gold mine: Perspectives from the rock face. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14, 278-285.doi:10.1108/13665620210445582
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin.
Powell, A., & Pazos, P. (2017). Building high-performing autonomous teams in complex manufacturing settings: A naturalistic research approach. Engineering Management Journal, 29(3), 206-219.
Rolfsen, M., & Langeland, C. (2012). Successful maintenance practice through team autonomy. Employee Relations, 34, 306-321. doi:10.1108/01425451211217725
Roper, K.O. and Phillips, D.R. (2007), “Integrating self-managed work teams into project management”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-36.
Roufaiel, N., & Meissner, M. (1995). Self-managing teams. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 2, 21-37. doi:10.1108/14635779510081625
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35, 751-781. doi:10.1177/1059601110390835
Roy, M. (2003). Self-directed work teams and safety: A winning combination? Safety Science, 41, 359-376. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00040-1
Ruijters, M. & Simons, R. (2006). Het leerlandschap in organisaties. Develop; Onderzoekend leren, lerend onderzoeken, year 2006(2), 54-63.
Scribner, J., Sawyer, R., Watson, S., & Myers, V. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 67-100. doi:10.1177/0013161X06293631
Sethi, R., & Sethi, A. (2009). Can quality-oriented firms develop innovative new products? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 206-221. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00346.x
Short, P. M. (1993). School empowerment through self-managing teams: Leader behavior in developing self-managing work groups in schools. ERIC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED364983.pdf
Slavit, D., & McDuffie, A. R. (2013). Self-Directed Teacher Learning in Collaborative Contexts. School Science & Mathematics, 113(2), 94-105. doi:10.1111/ssm.12001
Smith, A. D., & Offodile, O. F. (2008). Strategic importance of team integration issues in product development processes to improve manufacturability. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 14, 269-292.doi:10.1108/13527590810898527
Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240−261.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2012). Peer-based control in selfmanaging teams: Linking rational and normative influence with individual and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 435-447. doi:10.1037/a0025303
Strydom, C. F. (2002). An evaluation of the self-directed work team concept as a means to improve overall performance on South African gold mines. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 102, 93-100. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10520/AJA0038223X_2779
Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000).Work groups: From the How thorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 44–67.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248-265.http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604457
Thursfield, D. (2015). Resistance to teamworking in a UK research and development laboratory. Work, Employment and Society, 29, 989-1006. doi:10.1177/0950017014559967
Trist, E. L. (1981). The socio-technical perspective. In A. H. Van de Ven &W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 19–75). New York: Wiley.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
Trist, E. L., Higgin, G. W., Murray, J., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London: Tavistock.
Turner, D. M. (2016, March 1). Are your employees too tired to change? Retrieved June 21, 2018, from https://thinktransition.com/change-fatigue/
Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 49-61. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90027-9
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559−577
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559-577.doi:10.1287/orsc.12.5.559.10094
Wax, A., DeChurch, L., & Contractor, N. (2017). Self-Organizing into winning teams: Understanding the mechanisms that drive successful collaborations. Small Group Research, 48(6), 665-718. doi:10.1177/1046496417724209
Weis, P. (1992). Achieving zero-defect service through self-directed teams. Journal of Systems Management, 43(2), 26-28. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/docview/199815668/fulltextPDF/CE30D1D55D6048D4PQ/1?accountid=12967
Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–112). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gepersonaliseerd LerenIrene van der Spoel, 2 mei 2017
Gepersonaliseerd leren, ook bekend als gepersonaliseerd onderwijs, wordt steeds vaker als ideaal gezien. Er wordt druk geëxperimenteerd met onderwijs op maat maken, zodat iedereen kan leren op een passende manier. Gepersonaliseerd leren in het kort is onderwijs waarin de leerling of student centraal staat (Conradi, 2015). Om dit te bereiken worden vaak ICT-tools of andere manieren gebruikt om (analytische) gegevens te verzamelen over leerlingen. Aan de hand van deze gegevens kunnen de (potentiële) competenties van een leerling gebruikt worden om te leren (Redding & Temple University, 2014). Dit wordt gedaan door de leerling bewust te maken van hun eigen competenties en daarbij passende leeractiviteiten aan te bieden. Door het kunnen kiezen van passende leeractiviteiten en dit te kunnen delen met medeleerlingen, worden de leerlingen autonoom in het leerproces, wat de motivatie en leerrendement vergroot (Redding & Temple University, 2014).
De nieuwe stroom omtrent gepersonaliseerd leren heeft als doel om het huidige onderwijs persoonlijker te maken. Er zijn nog geen directe bewijzen dat deze manier van leren het leerrendement verhoogt, maar veelvoudig theoretisch onderzoek heeft een zeer degelijke, positieve hypothese opgesteld (Rood, 2017). De leeractiviteiten bij gepersonaliseerd leren gaan niet langer om enkel kennis vergaren, maar focussen op het natuurlijke verlangen om te spelen, problemen op te lossen, te dromen en te delen (Zmuda, Ullman & Curtis, 2015).
Gepersonaliseerd leren faciliteert verschillende processen die al langer bekend zijn binnen het onderwijs. Het begint met het idee dat iedereen gezien wil worden. Door leerlingen te betrekken bij het leerproces en ze als partner te laten optreden in plaats van ondergeschikte, wordt de motivatie sterk verhoogd (Rickabaugh & Temple University, 2015). Dit gaat automatisch hand in hand met autonomie. Autonomie is één van de drie basisbehoeften van een leerling, samen met competentie en relatie (Ebbens & Ettekoven, 2015). Relatie is ook van groot belang bij gepersonaliseerd leren; door kennis en vaardigheden te herkennen en erkennen, wordt de werkrelatie tussen student en docent bevorderd (Teitler, 2009). Daarnaast biedt het werken met gedifferentieerde en persoonlijke leeromgevingen de docent mogelijkheid om op te treden als coach in plaats van presentator, waardoor er meer tijd ontstaat voor individuele begeleiding. Naast de drie basisbehoeften, voegt Ferlazzo nog een belangrijke vierde voorwaarde toe: De leerstof moet relevant zijn voor de student. Als een leeromgeving aan deze vier behoeften kan voldoen, is het succesvol voor gepersonaliseerd leren (2017).
Naast deze vier behoeften, hebben verschillende onderzoeken uitgewezen dat er meerdere voorwaarden zijn voor effectief gepersonaliseerd leren.
Het ontwerpen van een gepersonaliseerde leeromgeving vereist het identificeren van een doelgroep. Op basis van de doelgroep en leerdoelen, kunnen leeractiviteiten opgesteld worden. Deze leeractiviteiten dienen gebaseerd te zijn van het leergedrag van de doelgroep (Wong, Vuong & Liu, 2017). Mogelijke variabelen hierin zijn: leervoorkeuren, motivatie, competentie en cognitie.
Om gepersonaliseerd leren effect te laten hebben, is het belangrijk dat de studenten eerst leren hoe zelfgestuurd leren werkt. Dit behoort echter niet op een zelfgestuurde manier te gebeuren. Gebruik maken van zogenaamde afbouwende scaffolding (structuur bieden) is cruciaal in dit proces (Vrieling, 2015).
ICT is geen directe voorwaarde voor gepersonaliseerd leren, maar het stelt docenten wel in staat om grotere groepen tegelijk gedifferentieerd en gepersonaliseerd onderwijs aan te bieden (Blažeska-Tabakovska, Ivanović, Klašnja-Milićević & Ivković, 2017). ICT biedt vaak de mogelijkheid om leren te laten plaats vinden op ieder tijdsstip en op iedere plek. Daarnaast biedt online leren de mogelijkheid om een zelfgekozen leerstijl aan te houden, wanneer er verschillende soorten leeractiviteiten worden aangeboden.
Als er over persoonlijke leeromgevingen gesproken wordt, betreft het vaak online leeromgevingen. Dit neemt niet weg dat de docent nog steeds een cruciale rol heeft, zoals eerder besproken. De persoonlijke leeromgevingen moeten voldoen aan enkele voorwaarden. Zo moet de leerling voor een groot deel het leren zelf kunnen bepalen en indelen, de leerling moet zich gezien en gehoord voelen en er moet regelmatig feedback op zowel het leerproces als de producten plaatsvinden (Basham, Hall, Carter & Stahl, 2016).
Om gepersonaliseerd onderwijs te faciliteren, moet er gerealiseerd worden dat het grote veranderingen vraagt van zowel het management, als de docenten en studenten (Fisher, White, Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive & Highlander, 2016). Deze verandering kost tijd, energie en vooral veel motivatie. Daarnaast is het belangrijk dat er samengewerkt wordt, waarin elk samenwerkingsverband in ieder geval een expert op didactisch en technisch gebied heeft (O'Donnell, Lawless, Sharp & Wade, 2015).
Gepersonaliseerd leren focust voornamelijk op de verschillen tussen studenten. Door de verschillen te herkennen, erkennen en daarop in te spelen, kan onderwijs op maat worden gemaakt. Waar echter voor gewaakt moet worden is dat deze verschillen niet te veel benadrukt worden en daarmee een negatief effect krijgen (Martens, 2015). De verschillen tussen studenten zouden juist positief benaderd moeten worden, om zo van ieders kwaliteiten gebruik te maken en samen verder te komen.
Samengevat draait gepersonaliseerd onderwijs om de leerling. Door de competenties van de leerling te erkennen en te gebruiken, kan het leerrendement verhoogd worden en ontstaat er meer motivatie voor het leren van de stof of het verkrijgen van vaardigheden. Het leerproces moet dan wel voldoen aan verschillende voorwaarden om de effectiviteit te optimaliseren, maar dat is het uiteindelijke resultaat meer dan waard. Iedere leerling wil gezien worden.
Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Carter Jr., R. A., & Stahl, W. M. (2016). An Operationalized Understanding of Personalized Learning. Journal Of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 126-136. doi:10.1177/0162643416660835
Blažeska-Tabakovska, N., Ivanović, M., Klašnja-Milićević, A., & Ivković, J. (2017). Comparison of E-Learning Personalization Systems: Protus and PLeMSys. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning, 12(1), 57-70. doi:10.3991/ijet.v12i01.6085
Conradi, R. (2015, oktober). 7 dingen die je moet weten over gepersonaliseerd leren. Geraadpleegd van https://www.onderwijsvanmorgen.nl/7-dingen-die-je-moet-weten-over-gepersonaliseerd-leren/
Ebbens, S. & Ettekoven, S. (2015). Effectief Leren. Noordhoff Uitgevers Groningen/Houten.
Ferlazzo, L. (2017). Student Engagement: Key to Personalized Learning. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 28-33.
Fisher, J. F., White, J., Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive, I., & Highlander, I. (2016). From the Frontlines: Takeaways from the 2016 Blended and Personalized Learning Conference.
Kong, S. C., & Song, Y. (2015). An experience of personalized learning hub initiative embedding BYOD for reflective engagement in higher education. Computers & Education, 88227-240. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.003
Martens, M. (2015). Differenz und Passung: Differenzkonstruktionen im individualisierenden Unterricht der Sekundarstufe. ZQF - Zeitschrift Fuer Qualitative Forschung, 16(2), 211-229.
O'Donnell, E., Lawless, S., Sharp, M., & Wade, V. P. (2015). A Review of Personalised E-Learning: Towards Supporting Learner Diversity. International Journal Of Distance Education Technologies, 13(1), 22-47.
Redding, S., & Temple University, C. L. (2014). Personal Competencies in Personalized Learning.
Rickabaugh, J., & Temple University, C. L. (2015). Including the Learner in Personalized Learning. Connect: Making Learning Personal.
Rood, T. (2017, 28 februari). Flip je school: het waarom van gepersonaliseerd leren. Geraadpleegd van http://wij-leren.nl/gepersonaliseerd-leren-voordelen.php
Teitler, P. (2009). Lessen in Orde. Uitgeverij Coutinho: Bussum.
Vrieling, E. (2015). Zelfgestuurd leren kun je niet zelfgestuurd leren.
Wong, P. C., Vuong, L. C., & Liu, K. (2017). Personalized learning: From neurogenetics of behaviors to designing optimal language training. Neuropsychologia, 98(Special Issue: The Neural Basis of Language Learning), 192-200. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.002
Zmuda, A., Ullman, D., & Curtis, G. (2015). Learning personalized. the evolution of the contemporary classroom. San Francisco Jossey-Bass 2015.
This theoretical research focuses on the acquisition and learning of the English language in a self-regulatory manner. Self-regulated learning is the student’s ability to direct, monitor, and assess their own learning process (Kester & Merriënboer, 2013). According to Zimmerman, self-regulated learning comes in three phases: preparation, effectuation, and reflection (2000, 2006).
Acquisition of a language is the “gradual development of ability in a language by using it naturally in communicative situations with others who know the language" (Yule, 2011, p. 187), as opposed to learning a language, which is a “more conscious process of accumulating knowledge of the features, such as vocabulary and grammar, of a language, typically in an institutional setting" (Yule, 2011, p.187). Often, acquisition leads to proficiency, and learning helps to gather knowledge. The combination of acquisition and learning has proven to be very efficient in English Second Language Learners (Yule, 2011). In ESLL teaching methodology, this is known as the post-communicative approach. The aim of this approach is to focus on fluency rather than accuracy, but accuracy is used to support proficiency (Ur, 2012).
Nowadays, schools strive to educate their students to become contributors to a better, richer 21st century (Meester, Bergsen & Kirschner, 2017). Competencies such as collaborative problem-solving, self-regulated learning, creativity, and global awareness are a few of the most significant skills; and students’ learning environments can have an important role in developing them (Groff, 2013; Groff & Mouza, 2008; Yelland, 2007; Hannafin & Land, 1997; Riel, 1994). Research has shown that students who apply self-regulated learning effectively, tend to be more active, resourceful, and effective at academic task performance (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). This may even have a positive effect on procrastination (Pintrich, 1999). Many studies have confirmed that self-regulated learning has a positive effect on students’ performance (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Masui & de Corte, 2005; Pintrich, 2002; Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). In this paper/study, second language acquisition as well as learning will be discussed at first. Subsequently, the essence of self-regulated learning will be addressed. Lastly, these two areas of knowledge will be combined, to explore self-regulated learning for ESLL.
Language Acquisition and Learning
Second language acquisition has been researched extensively. Unfortunately, there has not been a clear conclusion as to how language is acquired (Juffs, 2011). There is also no consensus on the origin of languages (Yule, 2014).
Second language learning and acquisition consists of four main skills, and two sub-skills. The main skills are reading, listening, speaking, and writing. The first two are the receptive skills. Speaking and writing are productive skills. The two sub-skills are vocabulary and grammar (Staatsen & Heebing, 2015; Ur, 2012).
The main skills, also known as the communicative skills, focus on acquisition, as the main goal is proficiency (Yule, 2011). According to Byram, Second Language Acquisition should be used to stimulate communication and build cultural competence. This can be done by using authentic material in the target language (2013), which is also part of the post-communicative approach, mentioned by Ur (2012). Apart from that, the learning activities should be communicative, in which students use the target language in a meaningful manner (Staatsen & Heebing, 2015; Ur, 2012).
Exposure to comprehensible input (i.e. texts and audio on an appropriate level of proficiency) in the target language is crucial for language acquisition and the development of receptive skills (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1998), and has a positive effect on the acquisition of the productive skills (Krashen, 1982, 1985; Anceaux, 1989; Doughty & Long, 2003). As opposed to first language acquisition, second language acquisition relies heavily on the ability to consciously reflect and receive feedback on the produced language (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; DeKeyser, 2000). When providing feedback, variation in self-assessment, peer feedback, and expert feedback is important (Spada, 2013). The feedback should be relevant to the phase of development the student is in, and it should be considerably positive, in order for the student to find the motivation to improve their language skills (Hattie, 2012; Hattie & Yates, 2014). It is important to find a balance between correcting mistakes that do not impede communication, and praising fluency and production of language in order to to avoid loss of motivation (Heebing & Staatsen, 2015; Simons & Decoo, 2009). Motivation is an important factor in successful language acquisition (Csizér, Dörnyei, & Mod Lang, 2005; Gardner, 1985), because positive motivation tends to increase engagement with the target culture, which enables deeper processing of the target language (Heilman, Juffs, & Eskenazi, 2007).
In language learning acquiring common vocabulary, as opposed to irrelevant words, is important (Schmitt, 2012). Deciding on common vocabulary can be done by language experts, but also by learners of the language. Words that a student frequently encounters because of interest in a certain topic, can also be seen as common vocabulary (Bogaards & Laufer-Dvorkin, 2004; Ur, 2012). Vocabulary should always be offered in context, and should be defined or translated by the ESL-learners themselves (Schmitt, 2012). The testing of vocabulary, should also be done in context, however, translation is not necessarily a bad way to test understanding (Hughes, 2013).
Grammar, similar to vocabulary, can be selected on frequency of use, on distinct differences in grammar compared to the learner’s first language, or it can be based on the learner’s errors (Davis & Rimmer, 2010; Ur, 2012). The latter, according to Thornbury (2005, p. 32), is most effective, and creates a less teacher-focused classroom setting. Thornbury also claims that emerging grammar, rather than form-focused learning, is more motivating and efficient (2005).
In conclusion, language acquisition consists of reading, listening, writing, and speaking. These skills are most easily acquired, when they are used for meaningful communication. The receptive skills require a lot of comprehensible input and exposure. The productive skills require feedback, and are dependent on the development of the receptive skills. To support the main skills, the sub-skills vocabulary and grammar should be trained as well. Vocabulary and grammar should be offered on context. The choice of vocabulary lists or grammatical structures that need to be learnt, can be made based on the language a student encounters and produces. Self-regulated learning is a student-centred, where feedback and meaningful situations play an important role. This will be discussed in the next paragraphs.
According to Zimmerman, self-regulated learning comes in three phases: preparation, effectuation, and reflection (2000, 2006). In the preparation phase, the student sets objectives and gathers information, and decides on strategies to reach these goals. In the effectuation, the student monitors the strategies and adjusts if necessary, and the student keeps track of their process. The teacher functions particularly in this phase as a coach. The evaluation phase observes the learning process in retrospective, and collects implications for future learning processes (Ertmer & Newby, 1996; Fowler, 2008; Kester & Merriënboer, 2013).
Six dimensions are entral to self-regulated learning,: why, how, when, where, with whom, and what (Dembo, et al., 2006). The dimensions will be addressed in more detail in Self-Regulated Learning in ESLL.
ICT can facilitate the aforementioned three-step process of self-regulated learning, for instance through an online portfolio, which helps students keep an overview of their learning process. The responsibility for this portfolio can be the students’, the teacher’s, or a shared responsibility, depending on the students’ self-regulatory skills (Kester & Merriënboer, 2013).
Working online is mostly beneficial, because it is time and cost-saving, however, the structure and didactical concepts of the lesson, determine the effectiveness and learning efficiency (Clark & Feldon, 2005). Online learning is difficult when the objective is a language, as language acquisition requires opportunities for output (Swain, 1995), and exposure to comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985). Furthermore, to receive feedback, communication is vital, and this communication includes the ability to apply compensating strategies, and to recognize the need to alter language in order to convey the correct message (Long, 1996). However, students who apply self-monitoring skills, tend to be actively involved, and are more likely to successfully acquire a language using online resources only (Hurd, 2001). To cater to all needs, self-regulatory learning for ESLL should be offered both online and offline.
According to Kester and Merriënboer, digital learning activities should fit the manner in which information is processed in our memory (2013), which is confirmed by Ambrose, et al, claiming that how students organise knowledge influences how they learn and apply new material (2010). However, the memory processing system has a ‘bottleneck effect’, meaning overload can clog the system. This is also known as the Cognitive Load Theory (Merriënboer et al., 2005; Sweller, 1988). To avoid cognitive overload, the following aspects need to be taken into account: the student’s attention must be aimed; the complexity of the study material needs to be reduced; support needs to be given; irrelevant information needs to be left out; and both the visual and audial systems need to be invoked (Kester & Merriënboer, 2013). Additionally, Kester and Merriënboer claim that in the design of activities, motivational colours, shapes, and details need to be left out, because they solely hinder learning (2013). In contrast, Ambrose et al mentions that “(…) students’ motivation determines, directs, and sustains what they learn,” (2010).
To conclude, self-regulated learning comes in three phases: Preparation, effectuation, and evaluation. These three steps can be monitored with use of an online portfolio, where to both students and teacher have access. The learning should not occur online only, but also offline to ensure opportunity for interaction. Apart from that, the Cognitive Load Theory should not be overlooked, which means that redundancy needs to be taken into account.
Self-Regulated Learning in ESLL
An online portfolio can be used to monitor self-regulated learning (Kester & Merriënboer, 2013), but formulating learning goals without further support, may prove difficult for most students. Research by Gu and Johnson (1996) has found that self-regulated learning concerning English vocabulary, can significantly and positively predict effective acquisition and vocabulary size. Similarly, Park (1997) found a distinct correlation between metacognitive abilities and scores on language tests. These skills are inherently stronger developed in girls, who tend to have greater self-discipline (Duckworth & Selighman, 2006; Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Regarding language acquisition, several studies have contradicted each other on whether boys or girls have innate advantageous neurological structures to master a foreign language (Baxter et al., 2003; Weiss, Kemmler, Deisenhammer, Fleischhacker, & Delazer, 2003; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989, 1990; Bacon, 1992). For either gender, research suggests that the proactive role towards acquiring a language, rather than inherent advantages, is more important in achieving learning goals (Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). However, applying self-regulated learning successfully, requires a more proactive attitude.
Most important in the success of self-regulated learning, is the coaching provided by the teacher (Çelik, Arkın, & Sabriler, 2012). This is confirmed by Lin, Zheng, and Zhang, who suggest that in online learning, expert-learner, and content-learner contact is important, but learner-learner contact is less significant (2017). Apart from that, students require to be challenged, in order to avoid boredom (Tseng, Liu & Nix, 2017). Boredom decreases the likelihood that student will apply self-regulated learning, or other strategies requiring effort (Macklem, 2015, p. 42). When self-monitoring skills are applied in challenging situations, students’ attitude towards learning improves, their performance in language acquisition develops, and general motivation and confidence concerning language proficiency increases (Chang, 2007).The ability to set learning goals, and to self-evaluate, has shown to be crucial to ESLL (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996). Providing feedback on set learning goals, providing questions for evaluation, and considering the six dimensions of self-regulated learning when formulation learning goals, can support this crucial component of self-regulated learning (Andrade & Bunker, 2009).
The aforementioned six dimensions of self-regulated learning – how, why, when, where, with whom, and what – construct a complete image of self-regulated learning (Dembo, et al., 2006). When setting learning goals, these six questions should be answered.
How concerns the method of learning, and includes strategies such as summarizing, asking questions, and creating visuals (Andrade & Bunker, 2009). According to Moore, providing tools and structure in learning can increase the number of learning strategies learners can apply, but it also decreases learners’ autonomy (1972, 2007). Scaffolding learning is important, but within self-regulated learning, it should predominantly be based on suggestions. Apart from that, techniques for learning sub-skills and acquiring main skills, should be emphasized (Andrade & Bunker, 2009).
The reason for the learning goals (why) concerns motive, and motivation (Andrade & Bunker, 2009). The two types of motivation are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is an internal drive to achieve learning goals, as opposed to extrinsic information, which concerns an external factor, such as grades or graduating (Staatsen & Heebing, 2015). Intrinsic motivation tends to be more effective in language acquisition (Heilman, Juffs, & Eskenazi, 2007; Staatsen & Heebing, 2015). Motivation plays a key role in language acquisition, and requires development of positive self-talk, goal setting, and teaching learners how to manage their emotions, because emotions can negatively influence acquisition (Andrade & Bunker, 2009).
The third dimension of self-regulated learning for ESLL, is when, and addresses time. Time management is an important component of self-regulated learning and can be supported by providing time indications for activities. Apart from that, it can be useful to provide tips for structuring time (Andrade & Bunker, 2009).
Where does not only include the physical environment, but especially the characteristics of the environment, and whether these can be adapted to changing needs (Andrade & Bunker, 2009). Beforehand, it is important to decide whether the learning activities require for instance a quiet spot, or interaction with peers.
The fifth dimension, with whom, addresses the ability to determine what the learner needs from the environment (Andrade & Bunker, 2009). As opposed to traditional education, self-regulated learning requires the learner to find the material and help they need (Kester & Merriënboer, 2013). In language learning, interaction is a crucial component (Staatsen & Heebing, 2015; Ur, 2012), because it enables the development of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Affective filters, inhibitions concerning producing language, can hinder the development of communicative competence (Krashen, 1981). Therefore, the choice of a trusted conversation partner, and an appropriate level in learning activity can be important. Andrade and Bunker (2009) mention that suggestions for interactive exercises and how to contact native speakers, could be included in an educational design. Additionally, facilitating situations wherein interaction can take place, can also support learners in developing communicative competence.
What is learnt, performance, includes reflecting, observing, and assessing (Andrade & Bunker, 2009). What is learnt is most apparent in the aforementioned evaluation phase of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2000, 2006). To self-monitor the development of language, reflective journals can be useful. Feedback from experts (Van den Boom, Paas & van Merriënboer, 2007), and self-reflection on performance (Murphy, 2005), have proven to be effective within a reflective journal. Feedback through interaction, to notice the gap between the learner’s proficiency and required communicative skills, has also shown effective (Swain, 1995).
To sum up, self-regulated learning requires a coaching teacher, providing feedback on learning goals and the effectuation phase. These learning goals, should be formulated using the how, why, when, where, with whom, and what-questions. Apart from that, acquiring a language in a self-regulatory manner, requires learners to have plenty opportunity for interaction, and suggestions for learning activities.
Self-regulated learning is a manner of learning in which the student directs, monitors, and assess their own learning. This can be supported by ICT, for example through an online portfolio, or through designed activities by teachers. Such activities need to take into account how people learn and how the memory works. This means both the audial and visual systems need to invoked, motivation needs to be generated, but cognitive overload needs to be avoided, by applying redundancy.
Self-Regulated learning and Language AcquisitionLearning a language in a self-regulatory manner, can be done with use of an online portfolio that focuses on learner-formulated learning goals. These learning goals are part of the preparation phase, which is followed by effectuation, and evaluation. In setting learning goals, the how, why, when, where, with whom, and what-questions should be answered, and concern the four main-skills, and two sub skills. The topics that need to be explored regarding the sub skills can be determined by what students encounter and produce, such as common vocabulary, or grammar that is often applied incorrectly. Both vocabulary and grammar need to be offered in authentic contexts. These can be gathered from the comprehensible input that students require to have access to.
For both language acquisition and self-regulated learning, feedback is important. The feedback should be provided by the teacher, peers, and the learner themselves.
Developing self-regulatory skillsOnce the learning objectives have been formulated, the learner requires suggestions for learning activities to reach these goals. The learning activities should have a time indication, to facilitate planning and time-management skills. Similarly, suggestions for real-time interaction with native speakers, teacher, or fellow students, need to be provided. Interaction can function as an important part of gaining proficiency, and as feedback.
Feedback on the formulated learning goals, and peer feedback, facilitate the development of self-regulatory skills. Peer feedback allows students to discover others’ learning strategies, and thereby expands their own repertoire. Applying self-evaluation is also a significant component of developing self-regulatory skills. This needs to be facilitated by providing students with questions that evoke self-reflection.
BibliographyAblard, K. E., Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 94–101.
Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam K., (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near native second language. Stud Second Lang Acquis, 30:481–510.
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M, & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass; Hoofdstuk 2.
Anceaux, H. (1989). Luisteren en Lezen: Een onderzozek naar de receptieve vaardigheden in het aanvangsonderwijs Frans. Leiden.
Andrade, M. S., & Bunker, E. L. (2009). A model for self-regulated distance language learning. Distance Education, 30(1), 47-61. doi:10.1080/01587910902845956
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. (2004) Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 523–535.
Bacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal. 76: 160–178.
Baxter, L., Saykin, A., Flashman, L., Johnson, S., Guerin, S., Babcock, D., Wishart, H. (2003). Sex differences in semantic language processing: A functional MRI study. Brain Language 84: 264–272.
Bogaards, P. & Laufer-Dvorking, B. (2004). Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Botta, G., Burg, C., Berg, F., & Bureau Bisontekst (Nijmegen). (2009). Leerpleinen! : Wegwijzer voor het voortgezet onderwijs. Amersfoort: CPS Onderwijsontwikkeling en advies.
Brydges R, Nair P, Ma I, Shanks D, & Hatala R. (2012). Directed self-regulated learning versus instructor-regulated learning in simulation training. Medical Education, 46(7), 648-56. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04268.x
Byram, M. (2013). Foreign language teaching and intercultural citizenship. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 53-62.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47
Çelik, S., Arkın, E., & Sabriler, D. (2012). EFL Learners' Use of ICT for Self-Regulated Learning. Journal Of Language & Linguistics Studies, 8(2), 98-118.
Chang, M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitoring. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 187-196. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00203.x
Clark, R. E. & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Csizér, K., Dörnyei, Z. & Mod Lang, J. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. Mod Lang J, 89:19–36
Davis, F. & Rimmer, W. (2010). Active Grammar 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
DeKeyser, R.M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Stud Second Lang Acquis, 22:499–534.
Dembo, M.H., Junge, L.G., & Lynch, R. (2006). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Implications for web-based education. In H.F. O’Neil & R.S. Perez (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 185–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Diwadkar, V. A., Bellani, M., Ahmed, R., Dusi, N., Rambaldelli, G., Perlini, C., Marinelli, V., Ramaseshan, K., Ruggeri M. & Bambilla, P., (2016). Chronological age and its impact on associative learning proficiency and brain structure in middle adulthood. Behavioural Brain Research, 297, 329-37. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2015.10.016
Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (red.) (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Teaching. Chichester/Oxford/Malden, M A.
Duckworth, A., Seligman, M. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science 16: 939–944.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311–326.
Ehrman, M., Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal. 73(1): 1–13.
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, selfregulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
Fowler, J. (2008). Experiential learning and its facilitation. Nurse Education Today, 28, 427-433.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London
Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. OECD – CERI Working Paper.
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.
GSG Leo Vroman. (2017). Ons Onderwijs. Retrieved on 30 September 2017, from http://www.gsgleovroman.nl/
Gu, Y., Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning. 46(4): 643–679. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01355.x
Hannafin, M., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.
Hattie, J. & Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and Science of How We Learn. New York/London.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London.
Heilman, M., Juffs, A., & Eskenazi, M. (2007). Choosing reading passages for vocabulary learning by topic to increase intrinsic motivation. Fron Artif Intell Appl, 157:566–568.
Hughes, A. (2013). Testing for Language Teachers (14th ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hurd, S., Beaven, T., & Ortega, A. (2001). Developing autonomy in a distance language learning context: Issues and dilemmas for course writers. System, 29 (3), 341–355.haha
Juffs, A. (2011), Second language acquisition. WIREs Cogn Sci, 2: 277–286. doi:10.1002/wcs.106
Kester, L., & Merriënboer, J. van. (2013, december). Effectief leren van multimediale leerbronnen. 4W: Weten Wat Werkt en Waarom, 2(4), 15-51.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford/New York
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London.
Krashen, S. (1998). ‘Comprehensible output’, in: System, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 175-182
Lam, R. (2014). Promoting self-regulated learning through portfolio assessment: testimony and recommendations. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 39(6), 699-714. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.862211
Lin, C., Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 730-748. doi:10.1111/bjet.12457
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2005). Problems with supposed counter evidence to the critical period hypothesis. Int Rev Appl Linguist, 43:287–317.
Macklem, G. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motivation, self-regulation and engagement in learning, Manchester, MA: Springer.
Masui, C., de Corte, E. (2005) Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 351–372.
Meester, E., Bergsen, S., & Kirschner, P. (2017, December 22). De holle retoriek van 21st century skills: Hoezo is kennis minder belangrijk? Retrieved January 2, 2018, from https://www.scienceguide.nl/2017/12/holle-retoriek-21st-century-skills/
Merriënboer, J.J.G. van & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent evelopments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.
Mooij, T., Steffens, K., & Andrade, M. (2014). Self-Regulated and technology-Enhanced learning: A european perspective. European Educational Research Journal, 13(5), 519-528. doi:10.2304/eerj.2014.13.5.519
Moore, M.G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76–88. Retrieved 5 January, 2018, from http://www.ajde.com/Documents/learner_autonomy.pdf
Moore, M.G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 89–105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murphy, L. (2005). Critical reflection and autonomy: A study of distance learners of French, German and Spanish. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: Evolution and change (pp. 20–39). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Oxford, R. L., Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal. 73(3): 291–300.
Park, G.-P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals 30(2): 211–221
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., McKeachie, W. (1991) A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ), Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning.
Pokay, P., Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 41–50.
Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S. (1990) Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist 25: 19–33.
Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 452.
Schmitt, N. (2012). Vocabulary in Language Teaching (13th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simons, M. & Decoo, W. (2009). Communicatiedurf versus taalangst in: Levende Talen Tijdschrift, jg. 10, no. 2, p. 3-13
Singleton, D. (2005). The critical period hypothesis: a coat of many colours. Int Rev Appl Linguist, 43:269–285.
Spada, N. (2013). ‘Corrective feedback (oral)’ in: P. Robinson (red.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition, New York/Abingdon, p. 139-142.
Staatsen, F., & Heebing, S. (2015). Moderne Vreemde Talen in de Onderbouw (5th ed.). Bussum, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), For H.G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sweller, 1988: Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2): 257-285.
Sweet, C., Blythe, H., & Carpenter, R. (2016). Why the revised bloom's taxonomy is essential to creative teaching. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 26(1), 7-9. doi:10.1002/ntlf.3
Thornbury, S. (2005). Uncovering Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, p. 32
Tseng W. T., Liu H., & Nix J. L. (2017). Self-Regulation in language learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 124(2), 531-548. doi:10.1177/0031512516684293
Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics 27: 78–102.
Tseng, W.-T., Schmitt, N. (2008) Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning 58: 357–400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00444.x.
Ur, P. (2012). A Course in English Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & Van Merrienboër, J.J.G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532–548.
Vensters (2017). De GSG Leo Vroman [Data set]. Retrieved on 30 September 2017, from https://www.scholenopdekaart.nl/Middelbare-scholen/2373/1106/De-GSG-Leo-Vroman/Personeel
Weiss, E. M., Kemmler, G., Deisenhammer, E. A., Fleischhacker, W. W., Delazer, M. (2003). Sex differences in cognitive functions. Personality and Individual Differences. 35: 863–875.
Yelland, N. (2007). Shift to the future. Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. London: Routledge.
Yule, G. (2011). The Study of Language (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zimmerman, B. J., Martinex-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 51–59.
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H. (2011) Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction and an overview. In: Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. J. (eds) Handbook of self-regulated learning and performance, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–12.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Red.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K.A. Ericsson, N.