Barbara J. Walker (2003) THE CULTIVATION OF STUDENT SELF- EFFICACY IN READING AND WRITING, Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19:2, 173-187, DOI: 10.1080/10573560308217
Afterall when we talk tech and web with kids we really mean #literacies
same students use cognitive and metacognitive strategies to increase their understanding. Students with low self-efficacy are much less likely to use a combination of strategies such as elaboration and relating concepts.
However, according to Schunk (2003), effective learning does not require that efficacy be extremely high— simply that it be high enough to sustain engagement in present and future tasks.
First, successful learning experiences that are somewhat challenging yet can 174 B. J. Walker be accomplished are a significant means to develop self-efficacy (Pajares, 2003).
When this happens, students’ self-efficacy increase because they believe that their effort and strategy deployment produces the success.
In agentive apprenticeship these goals can mean producing change for others while building for yourself
Teachers can make task-specific comments about student success and attribute that success to using strategies that are learnable (Schunk, 2003). Likewise, positive self-attributions after completing challenging tasks influence the self-regulating behaviors of readers and writers.
Feedback and reflection improve learning which improves efficacy which improves learning. How do feedback loops and reflection work in with agentive apprenticeship? Does doing this publicly? Openly? Privately change anything?
When faced with overly challenging tasks, low efficacious students focus on an outcome of the performance (the goal) such as grades rather than learning something (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).
Grades have so little to do with learning. In fact agentive apprenticeship may thrive best where exterior and extrninsic awards are minimized.
group (their friends) and intrinsically motivated to save face (Walker, 2000). Using another source of information for developing self-efficacy, students make social comparisons while observing others completing aca- demic tasks (Pajares, 2003);
Learning as social pressure and the desire to fit in may play in agentive apprenticeship even with those with high sefl efficacy. You can see this with tool adoption. though the studies cited were done in in school writing spaces.. Author should have looked for tangential research in third spaces or at least qualified this missing area in the acceptance rejection section of the lit review...
When students choose their books, topic, or response, they expend more effort on these activities.
I taught through "Democracy by Design." My students made a choice along a pre determined path usually to the conclusion I wanted. I Am okay with that. Teacher, student. Adult, child. Network, apprentice. Similar to Amy Burvall's focus on constraint
only seeing a few studies cited repeatedly many fromt he same theoretical lens. Agency and writing isn't my field . Going to need to dig deeper. Need to look at connected learning, should proably read up on Chip Bruce and Dewey and democratic education.
(Freeman 1987, 1): ‘…Innovation Systems are networks of institutions, public or private, whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify, and diffuse new technologies.’
The TIS is defined by Carlsson and Stanckiewicz (1991, 94) as: ‘a network or networks of agents interacting in a specific technology area under a particular institutional infrastructure to generate, diffuse, and utilise technology’.