Can children develop an efficient and aware study method since primary school? An exploratory study on challenges and opportunities
I bambini possono
acquisire un metodo di studio efficace e consapevole fin dalla scuola primaria?
Uno studio qualitativo su sfide e opportunità
Giulia Cuozzo
Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura,
Letterature e Psicologia
(FORLILPSI), University of Florence, Italy – giulia.cuozzo@unifi.it
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0092-4469
ABSTRACT
The development of an efficient and aware study method proves to be one
of the most demanding educational challenges, even for secondary and university
students. With the purpose of investigating the role played by primary school
as starting point for practicing and gaining early study skills, this paper
illustrates and discusses the results of an exploratory study conducted through
a focus group attended by five primary school teachers working at “Don Lorenzo
Milani”, a Comprehensive Institute of Montespertoli,
Province of Florence, Central Italy—which adheres to the “Backpack-free [Senza
Zaino]” project. The discussion was designed to gather insights in relation
to five main areas: teachers’ knowledge of reference constructs, daily
practices implemented, obstacles to be faced, the contribution given by
educational technologies and further enabling steps. The results, serving as a
basis for future and broader surveys, reveal the need to act on both teachers
and students’ now rooted beliefs and approaches in favour of metacognitive
attitudes and informed use of educational technologies.
L’acquisizione di un metodo di studio efficiente e consapevole mostra di
essere una delle sfide educative più impegnative, anche per studenti di scuola
secondaria e universitari. Allo scopo di indagare il ruolo svolto dalla scuola
primaria come punto di partenza per esercitare e acquisire competenze di studio
precoci, il presente articolo illustra e discute i risultati di uno studio
esplorativo condotto attraverso un focus group al quale hanno partecipato
cinque insegnanti di scuola primaria operanti presso l’Istituto Comprensivo
“Don Lorenzo Milani” di Montespertoli, in provincia di Firenze – aderente al
progetto “Senza Zaino”. Il dibattito risultante è stato concepito per
raccogliere spunti riguardo a cinque aree principali: la conoscenza, da parte
degli insegnanti, dei costrutti di riferimento; le pratiche quotidiane
implementate; gli ostacoli da affrontare; il contributo fornito dalle
tecnologie educative; e, infine, ulteriori passi abilitanti alla competenza. I
risultati, che serviranno come base per future e più approfondite indagini,
rivelano la necessità di agire sia sulle convinzioni e sugli approcci ormai
radicati di insegnanti e studenti, sia a favore di disposizioni metacognitive e
dell’uso informato delle tecnologie educative.
KEYWORDS
Critical-reflective learning, Educational
technologies, Metacognition, Self-regulation, Study method
Apprendimento critico-riflessivo, Autoregolazione, Metacognizione, Metodo
di studio, Tecnologie educative
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Author declares no conflicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A huge thanks to Maria
Ranieri—Full Professor of Didactics and Special Pedagogy at the University of
Florence—for giving me the opportunity to write this article. Thanks also to Dr.
Elena Gabbi and Dr. Alice Roffi for their fundamental
support. Finally, heartful thanks to the teachers working at the Comprehensive
Institute “Don Lorenzo Milani” of Montespertoli,
which took part in the research by providing lots of food for thought.
RECEIVED
August 8, 2023
ACCEPTED
April 23, 2024
The latest
Italian school reforms and regulatory framework highlight the importance of
developing competencies that favour the construction of individual’s identity
and sense of citizenship (Boninelli 2015; Mazzeo,
2005; MIUR, 2012). Therefore, now more than ever the need to promote practices
of significant and lifelong learning (Dunlap & Grabinger, 2003) is
increasingly emerging. Nevertheless, one of the most frequently and
long-lasting reported educational obstacles is learners’ difficulty to achieve
a valid study method that allows them to relate to knowledge critically and
consciously, while making them able to master disciplinary contents to face
both school and everyday challenges (Cornoldi et al.,
2015). In this regard, recent research (Cornoldi et
al., 2015; Meneghetti et al., 2016; Scierri et al.,
2018) has stressed secondary and tertiary students’ lack of study skills that,
to be effective, have to include a set of more complex
abilities than just academic ones, such as self-management, task and social
control (Pelizzoni et al., 2017). Although several
focused interventions have already been implemented, lots of students attending
higher educational levels still don’t own good study skills since they have
always been used to learning contents by heart and repeating them through a
mechanical and notional approach, by not reflecting on them and consequently
forgetting them shortly after the performance required (Cornoldi,
1995). As Entwistle states, “It
might seem that the most immediate change in students’ approaches to studying
could be achieved by providing appropriate study skills training” (Entwistle, 2000, p. 3).
Based on
these considerations, early
focused interventions on how to learn to study may be determining
in achieving successful outcomes. With the aim of investigating the role played
by primary school, which is the starting point for study processes, in both
favouring and supporting the development of pupil’s efficient and aware study
method, this paper illustrates and discusses the results of a focus group
conducted with five primary school teachers as part of an exploratory research
designed to collect empirical material on the issue. In particular, the paper
opens by providing an overview of the reference literature; it then explains
the methodology used, by detailing its structure and implementation as well. It
continues with the illustration of the themes resulting from the data analysis
and their discussion in light of the already existing
evidence. The contribution ends by making a recap of the suggestions emerging
from participants’ direct testimonies, which pave the way to further and
broader studies.
As remarked by Pelizzoni
et al. (2017), study skills have intrigued educators for just over a century
and are now defined in literature as controllable and consciously applied
strategies. These strategies, intentionally used by students, aim to enhance
text comprehension and memorization quality and are vital for all study
activities.
Study skills are part of the study method,
which is a key tool for every student to navigate their educational path and to
obtain satisfying results without turning to external supports. Study method is
strictly connected to learning, but also to emotional-motivational variables: undoubtedly,
when a student lacks study method, she usually feels anxious and insecure, achieving
less than what she is capable of because of the impossibility to recover
already known information from memory (Cornoldi et
al., 2015). Cottini (2006) reviews different
studies carried out over the years in teaching contexts and identifies three
main constructs that play a decisive role in students’ acquisition of a study
method: metacognition, self-regulation and self-efficacy
perception. (a) The first concept was introduced by Flavell (1976), who
defined it as the ability to monitor and self-reflect on one’s own cognitive
processes in order to be aware and control them, thus
becoming able to evaluate the efficacy of adopted strategies and performed tasks.
Indeed, “it is defined most
simply as thinking about thinking” (Lai, 2011, p. 2). (b) The
second construct, conceptualized by Zimmerman’s (1986) Self-regulated
learning framework (SRL), is linked to the previous concept of metacognition,
but it specifically indicates the learners’ abilities to control their learning
environment by self-monitoring thoughts, emotions, and behaviours, which is
crucial for goal setting and the subsequent organization of study time. (c)
Finally, self-efficacy—which was notably developed by Bandura (1996) in his
theory of social learning—concerns students’ confidence about their own ability
to reach required levels in the execution of a task. Consequently, a lack of
this component can influence students’ learning skills and self-esteem.
Self-efficacy relies on various personal factors but also on teachers’
optimistic attitude, which can be helpful in eliciting students’ trust and
encouraging them to remodel their individual perceptions, as well as giving them
truly efficient feedbacks (Palmas et al., 2022). Since
teachers can be seen as critical mediators of knowledge (Mason, 2000), their
behaviour has a fair influence on students’ learning achievements and enjoyment,
and their availability is an emotional factor enabling students’ motivational
changes (Urhahne, 2015).
In the literature, three contributions stand
out among the many efficient models and procedures developed to be implemented
while studying: De Beni and Zamperlin (1993), Thomas
and Robinson (1977), and Andrich (2015). De Beni and Zamperlin’s
(1993) model is based on three main study phases,
namely: organization, comprehension, and memorisation. Students’ organization
involves the conscious management of materials, time, and tasks to be carried
out. Comprehension is obtained by multiple and step-by-step readings, while
memorisation consists of significantly and permanently storing up information
through written and mental strategies. The second outstanding model is Robinson
and Thomas’ (1977) PQ4R method, which depicts six specific operations
that should always be carried out by the student:
· Preview, that is, skimming the text preliminarily to identify the main themes
to be learnt;
· Questions students should themselves to get to the heart of the matter;
· Read, namely, reading the selected part of the text carefully, trying to
provide answers to previously expressed questions;
· Reflect, that is, meditating on what students are reading, searching for
examples and linking new information in the text to the already learned ones;
· Recite, namely, repeating both read contents and given answers to subsequently
trace back forgotten data;
· Review, which requires to go through the whole thing, attempting to remember
the most important concepts and to revise them in general.
Finally, Andrich’s five-question model (2015)
stresses the importance of improving reading and comprehension processes
through metacognitive strategic questions before, during, and after
reading, by problematizing the text in order to
make inferences, go forward evident topics, and catch the deepest elements or
incongruities. Autobiographical questions related to one’s own experience or point
of view, as well as those discussed in couples or small groups, are aimed at
strengthening attitudes of sharing and cooperation.
In addition, educational technologies may turn
out to be a key component in both improving learning processes and promoting
content, methodological and structural innovation as well (Bottino, 2015).
Their growing developments have made it possible to create Technology
Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs), defined as “any real, virtual or hybrid environment where
technology plays a role in making learning possible” (Persico & Steffens, 2017, p. 116). In particular, TELEs have shown significant potential to
scaffold self-regulative and metacognitive dynamics, by requiring a high
degree of student autonomy, well strengthened critical thinking and social
skills (Persico & Steffens, 2017). As a consequence,
teachers and students are called to overcome a strictly technical approach,
which is mostly used in traditional educational environments, for a growing
technological-educational mastery that encourages a conscious use of digital
technologies for learning (Ranieri, 2022).
Despite the importance of the issue, even
students with a longer school experience do not always develop an efficient
study method in a spontaneous and autonomous way (De Min Tona et al., 2014)
since they developed unprofitable study habits resulting in lacking
flexibility, self-regulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, self-esteem, or
interest (Cornoldi, 1995; De Min Tona et al., 2014).
At the same time, teachers usually believe that the acquisition of a study
method requires abilities that are too advanced, which are are
impossible for everyone to achieve, and consequently try to teach a
standardized theoretical method (Cornoldi, 1995).
Moreover, they are not often able to recognize the numerous aspects—including
the study of potentially uninteresting topics—which influence the development
of a study method because they have not themselves experienced such a process
for a long time this process (Cornoldi et al., 2015).
Trying to cover this gap, several Cognitive Education action programmes are
being implemented to enhance learn to learn processes and to improve
both teachers’ and pupils’ approaches (Haywood, 2010).
This study
inaugurates a campaign to investigate the role played by primary education in
introducing learners to study processes, by focusing on primary school teachers’
perceptions concerning challenges and opportunities related with the early
development of pupils’ efficient and conscious study methods. Therefore, even
if the topic has been long studied, through a hypothesis-generating process it
enjoys the ability to offer additional perspectives on the earliest year of
compulsory education (Swedberg, 2020)—that is, through exploratory research
aimed at raising questions rather than answering them (Merton, 1973). Although
it does not test assumptions, this study endeavours to identify recommendations
in relation to the following areas: (a) teachers’ awareness of theoretical
basics and practical implications related to the constructs of metacognition,
self-regulation, and self-efficacy; (b) educational practices implemented to introduce
to a study method and then foster it; (c) obstacles to be faced; (d) the contribution
of educational technologies; (e) further enabling steps.
After
identifying the key points for deeper understanding (Merton, 1987), the
investigator employed the focus group research method because it stands out for
its exploratory capabilities (Acocella & Cataldi, 2021). This method
enables the collection of qualitative data about a specific issue through
in-depth discussions. These discussions are guided by a moderator and involve
between four and twelve carefully selected participants who are encouraged to
share their views based on a set of targeted open-ended questions (Acocella,
2008; Zammuner, 2003).
The focus
group method not only fosters strong engagement and motivation among
interviewees, including emphasis on their emotional level, but it also helps
prevent dominance relationship among peers, thereby ensuring uniform
participation (Acocella, 2012). In addition, the focus group is one of those
research methodologies frequently used in qualitative research, where
literature highlights that the use of small sample sizes is not a limitation;
rather, under certain conditions, they can provide significant benefits (Guest
et al., 2006; Guest et al., 2017; Hennink et al.,
2016; Young & Casey, 2018). More specifically, when participants are
selected according to pre-determined criteria, when they share similar
experiences, and when they engage in partially structured interviews,
a small group may yield rich and robust findings. This approach helps to
minimize the burden on participants and maximize the use of limited resources.
For instance, a focus group consisting of about four to five members allows
more opportunities for individuals to express their own ideas (Stagi, 2000).
Moreover, when used as the sole research tool, the most prevalent themes can be
identified by organizing only two or three groups (Guest et al., 2017).
Furthermore, when the goal is to generate ideas and involve further fields of
intervention, exploratory research may also rely on a single case (Boddy, 2016).
This method is considered highly thorough and meaningful for examining topics in
detail in a non-systematic yet novel manner (Swedberg, 2020). It provides an
opportunity to familiarize with the issue preliminarily, then reflect on and
design future surveys leading to more solid and generalizable results
(Swedberg, 2014).
The participants in the focus group are primary school
teachers working at Comprehensive Institute [Istituto Comprensivo] “Don Lorenzo Milani”, located in Montespertoli
(Provincee of Florence, Central Italy). In Italy, a
Comprehensive Institute is akin to a British Multi-Academy Trust, but it is
usually a system of public schools that are consolidated for increased
administrative efficiency.
All the schools belonging to “Don Lorenzo Milani”
participate in a project called “Backpack-Free [Senza Zaino]”, which is
an innovative educational model established in 2002 and currently involving
about 300 other institutes in Italy. Senza Zaino is based on three
pillars: hospitality, responsibility, and community (Orsi,
2016). Accordingly, school should be a cozy and comfortable environment
designed to nurture the students’ diverse intelligences and cognitive styles by
making each of them protagonist of their own educational pathway. For this
reason, learners must feel the desire and be motivated to explore reality
through a spontaneous mobilisation of internal resources. That is achieved by personally
choosing the activities to be undertaken—which concern real-case scenarios—and by
utilizing alternative educational tools (e.g., timetables, personal activity
record cards, and educational software), which strengthen the learners’ own
sense of responsibility.
Another essential component is the care paid to social
relationships aimed at developing collaborative and prosocial behaviours, which
are functional to sharing and negotiateing meanings
in an continuous exchange of knowledge. Indeed,
classroom spaces are organized into distinct areas to diversify activities and
foster cooperation: tables, mini-lab stations, and an “agora”—reminiscent of
the ancient Greek city square—where teachers and students can discuss on topics
of mutual interest. At the same time, Senza Zaino rejects traditional
numerical grades in favour of comments stressing emerging strengths and/or
weaknesses. All these measures are specifically promoted to enahnce the development of students’ autonomy,
metacognition (Flavell, 1976), self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1986) and
self-efficacy perception (Bandura, 1996), contributing to their effective
learning, which is the ultimate goal of a valid study
method.
Within
such educational context, all the teachers acquainted with the investigator
were contacted—that is, 15 individuals. This was in excess of
the maximum number of envisaged participants but ensured full participation in
case many turned down the opportunity. Eventually, five female teachers working
at Don Lorenzo Milani attended the meeting. Their mean age was 57 years
(min = 50; max = 63) and enjoyed an average teaching
experience of ~26 years (min = 10; max = 37). The sample
consists of teachers belonging to various subject fields and grades, according
to MIUR’s (2012) classification. At the time the research was undertaken, two participants
belonged to the linguistic-artistic-expressive area (Grade 1 and
Grade 3); another two were included in the STEM (Grade 1 and
Grade 5); the extant was a teacher of Catholic Religious Education (IRC)
who taught at all primary grades. Such diversity allowed the investigator to
gather information at multiple levels and in different contexts.
The
focus group took place in July 2022 on Google Meet platform and lasted about
two hours. There were no observers, and the conversation was documented by
voice-recording under participants’ express consent. After fostering a climate
of mutual exchange, the debate was directed towards a semi-structured series of
questions formulated by the investigator, who acted as conductor-mediator
providing the interviewees with food for thought to foster their interaction (Acocella,
2008; Zammuner, 2003). According to
the existing literature and starting from the areas mentioned in Section 3.1,
targeted stimulus questions were developed as reported below:
2.
What are the ways in which do you usually
introduce pupils to study processes? Following the
initial phase, which educational practices do you keep implementing in your
daily teaching to support them?
3.
Do you believe the approaches you implement
may sometimes be limiting or—based on your experience—are there any false
beliefs/hidden convictions by both teachers and students hindering study
processes? If yes, why? How do you usually deal with them?
4.
Do
you think educational technologies can support metacognitive learning? Do you
integrate them into your teaching practice? If yes, how?
5.
With
a view to further steps, do you think it would be necessary to make teaching
staff reach greater awareness on the issue? If yes, how?
Being the focus
group a qualitative research method
(Acocella, 2008; Zammuner, 2003), data were
analysed through techniques of content analysis,
conducted on the basis of the discussion transcript involving verbal
codes such as the peer-to-peer conversations, speeches, comments and
phraseologies. After transcribing the participants’ statements, which were
provided following the stimulus questions asked by the conductor, the text has
been systematically segmented to identify different analytical units from which
several codes have been derived. The latter ones got labelled accordingly—that
is, with specific tags—which were then aggregated into five main themes
(Semeraro, 2011). Each participant has was pseudonymized
and was thus assigned a nominal cardinal progressive index, from P1 to P5, to
better identify the origin of the statements and to prevent ambiguities in the
attribution.
Data analysis was carried out
with the aim of examining participants’ self-reported perceptions and opinions.
In the next subparagraphs, the results of the focus
group will be described according to the five themes that emerged from the
analysis itself.
Notwithstanding
its relevance for study processes, participants stated they still found it
challenging to understand in depth the construct of metacognition since they had
never received training in the subject matter; therefore, they argued, their
approach was based on direct experiences with their students, so much that they
did not currently recognize the methodologies they use on a daily basis to deal
with the metacognitive dimension of learning. Indeed, P1 affirms:
“Metacognition has not been discussed
for a long time […]. I remember that I didn’t know this term in the early years
of my teaching experience, and I began to understand its meaning thanks to the
pedagogical method of the project Senza Zaino because we are used to
reflecting constantly after the activities we undertake” (P1).
Furthermore, P5
says:
“I find the concept of metacognition
a little hard because, even if it is now widespread at school, I still don’t
have a clear idea of what it truly means. I am gradually beginning to approach
it” (P5).
In this regard,
the model of the project Senza Zaino is strictly based on a
metacognitive perspective since teachers start their lesson generally by
activating pupils through a problematization phase that makes them enter a
discovery dimension. As P4 affirms,
“We never say: ‘Today [you
shall] open your books at page 15 […]’; quite the opposite, we advance: ‘In
your opinion, would men have been artists in prehistory? What tools would they
have used?’” (P4).
Instead of imparting disciplinary
contents, the topic is
introduced by asking children some stimulus questions and letting them express
their opinions through a brainstorming. Students are at the centre of the
learning process and teachers figure out how to act by drawing on the students’
feedback: this leads them to implement behaviours related to self-regulation
and self-efficacy. P2 confirms:
“All these activities we carry
out […] actually contribute to building the metacognitive competence we look
for and wish students reach, in order to possess a functional approach to study
method” (P2).
For this reason,
all the participants strongly believe metacognition is a key construct to be
developed at a general level, also in daily thinking and acting of teaching
staff.
When
introducing children to study processes, the five participating teachers believe
it is important to support them by avoiding providing them with a unique and
standardized way to study. In contrast, they tend to offer a set of tools and
strategies to let them freely choose the ones they prefer and develop a
personal approach. It is essential to first work on practices that enable textual
comprehension, such as making summary diagrams, underlining words with
different colours, or prompting children to create questions based on the
readings either in pairs or in groups—and by avoiding those already formulated
by the textbook or the teacher. This activity is very functional since, as P4
says, “to draw out the questions, students have to understand the text
effectively”. Another technique involves incorporating playful dynamics into
learning. For example, one of the participants describes using a “historian
box,” from which teacher retrieves specific objects related to historical
events previously studied by pupils and asks the students if anyone knows why
these items are in the box. This initiates a discussion where children, taking
turns, weare a necklace that bears the inscription “I
am the historian.” Wearing the necklace, they lead the day’s history
lesson, effectively becoming the protagonists. Concerning this, P4 asserts:
“This makes me realize the learner’s level of knowledge and, at the same
time, [even if] it turns out to be an oral exam for all intents and purposes, [the]
student feels invested with a role and gives all to it, without learning
contents by heart since the teacher’s demands and attitude are perceived as
non-judgemental” (P4).
The development
of a study method since primary school is often hindered by rooted and
widespread current beliefs, habits, and approaches related to both teachers and
pupils. Such challenges can be summarized into four main factors: conceptions
of study as (i) an isolated process, a (ii) home(work)
assignment, (iii) a linear offering of disciplinary contents, as
well as conceptions about (iv) students’ lexical poverty.
The first factor
is a consequence of teachers’ common belief according to which study method must
be achieved autonomously by the student—that is, in solitude. Otherwise, it is
believed she is not making enough efforts. Such belief is reflected in P2’s
words:
“When you think about study
method, it’s a very solitary issue that a person has to create for oneself, by
at a certain point even wondering why s/he hasn’t acquired it yet” (P2).
In line with
what was highlighted previously, P4 states:
“Children are left to their own
devices […], therefore the study of [actual] subjects […] are delegated mainly
to parents [as] home assignment” (P4).
Indeed, it’s
usually up to these latter ones to take care of the long and complex research
of a study methodology, by making attempts, improvising strategies, and ending
up by imparting them passively.
Focusing on
teachers’ educational practice, participants are generally used to explaining
contents in a transmissive manner, by expecting students to remember what they
have said. For this purpose, the only way forward by children is to repeat many
times the information presented in order to meet the
results desired—namely, a passive summary. This is confirmed by P2:
“According to the common logic, I
offer a package and you return it to me […] and, based on how similar it is to
the one I’ve given you, I understand whether you have gotten
where you needed to […]. It’s a close-minded approach […] that doesn’t allow
personal interpretations and spaces” (P2).
In doing so,
there is a top-down offering, where learning is focused on a pre-determined
product that has to be returned by the student at the
end of a certain period. This is a very widespread model yet doesn’t pay
attention to the process of in-depth analysis and reasoning conducted by pupil.
As a last
resort, all the participants notice a growing language poverty among pupils -
even within Italian-speaking ones - that makes it difficult to understand the
meaning of the words they read, by causing a lack of text comprehension. As a consequence, children aren’t able to deduce the heart
of the matter to then take possession of the theme, by thinking that “it’s
easier to learn contents by memory”, as P4 points out. “Students’ vocabulary is
a little limited, therefore also exposition is”, P3 continues; indeed, P5 adds:
“In Grade 4 I have found a
huge lack of lexicon. They don’t know many words and they aren’t sometimes even
able to produce a sentence, especially written, at an adequate orthographic and
syntactic level” (P4).
In this regard,
P4 believes strongly that certain media contents put the subject into contact
with the same and over-simplified words.
All the
interviewed teachers think educational technologies are a key support to
develop a good study method due to the variety of stimuli they offer; indeed,
P1 says: “Educational technologies can act positively on study processes since
child can benefit from multiple sources and playful tools”. To this end, the
two primary schools which the participants work in are provided with Acer
computers and Chromebooks pupils can use to work individually, in a couple or
in group. In doing so, motivation is fostered, knowledge increases, and
interdisciplinary connections are developed. In addition, P4 believes that each
lesson should always be combined with some computer-based activities. Indeed,
this happens constantly in her classroom, where one group at a time faces the
topic debated also in a digital way by means of focused educational resources
entailing the organisation of the studied information such as Wordwall, Book Creator, Kahoot and
SuperMapsX, which allows to create
multimedia maps. Everyone
agrees on the fact that educational technologies haven’t to
be conceived in place of traditional tools, but as a complement of them.
Nevertheless, there is still a lot of training to be done in
order to make teachers become aware of their multiple potentials and
ready to include them more and more in classroom in an effective way.
Despite the critical issues, four possible solutions
fostering the development of an efficient and aware study method came to light:
variety of approaches and sources, clear goal setting,
attitude towards experiences and attempts and practices of collective
construction of knowledge.
The first one involves the offer from
teachers of multiple techniques and tools in order to
make children able to test them and choose the ones they prefer to create their
own study method. Nevertheless, prior to this, the teacher has
to ensure the topic becomes everyone’s heritage in the classroom, so
that an ongoing exchange of knowledge can take place with a view to a situated
and social learning. “If we abandon the model ‘I give you and you give me
back,’ maybe we get closer to a level which is more played on competence”—P2
affirms.
The second approach focuses on the
importance of working on the definition of small but clear and significant
goals. On the one hand, teachers’ attention should be directed to elements such
as pupils’ participation, state of mind, level of enjoyment, desire to examine
in depth the subject matter, and overall involvement in the activity. This is
accomplished by leaving behind the summative assessment since, in such case, the
evaluation would bear on the product rather than on the process, without
fostering neither improvement nor autonomy. Instead
formative assessment is favoured, or even self-assessment. On the other hand,
pupils themselves should be equipped with rubrics or checklists “about what ‘I
got, I miss, I have to strengthen’”, as proposed by P1 and
P2. Another valid solution, especially with younger learners, is the building
of a traffic lights system to identify the abilities achieved (green colour)
and those that have not been reached yet (red colour). It is precisely when
students produce by themselves feedback or receive it without feeling judged
that they truly pass their learning threshold and appropriate the ways to
improve it.
The third perspective relies on experience, which is
conceived as the starting point of every teaching-learning process. P1 started
off: “It would be necessary to have a pupil’s holistic view.” Indeed, first of all teachers should see students in their different
facets and organize classroom work on the interests that are part of the
students’ everyday life. In line with the above, P1 continues: “If children’s
education starts from things reflecting their experience, learning will be
surely much less demanding”. P2 then adds: “Experience also passes through
simulations and experiments”, by stating that it is from practical attempts and
subsequent mistakes that students learn. In light of
this, she also specifies: “It’s not the topic repetition that gives awareness to
it”, supporting the possibility to let pupils see things from their own point
of view, choose what holds true significance for them, and selecting how to
document it. Therefore, corporeal involvement plays a central role since it
allows students to touch, measure, photograph or simply construct tools
manually—such as timelines or books. “Study method doesn’t just fall from the
sky, but it is built and developed through very different experiences:” with
these words, P2 suggests the importance to arrange a specific pathway, where
children gradually collect all assimilated contents and organize them
functionally.
The fourth and last proposal concerns the proximity
dimension that involves several approaches concerning peer-work such as
constructing things together—but which could also performed
with a tutor or a teacher. According to this perspective, students’ growth and
enrichment do not derive either from the study of a written page or from the
repetition of a teacher’s speech. In contrast, learning is based on
collaborative dynamics inside the classroom. Consistently with this, P1
underlines the importance of group activities: “Working together is already a
kind of study because you have to understand, share opinions and adopt an
inclusive perspective”. In addition, it means to “reflect oneself in another
one’s ideas and abilities” (P2). Indeed, the approach of the project [anonymized for
peer-review] establishes that study activities are mainly managed inside the
classroom, so that children are not left to their own devices. Another emerging approach is peer tutoring: if we think about an older
pupil that comes to help a younger one and takes care of him/her, the learning
process will become more authentic and successful. In all this, teachers must
act as mediators; in particular, whenever they deal with a new cohort, it is
counter-productive to rely on old notebooks or previous tasks. As P4 explains,
it is quite the opposite: the key process is to start again from scratch, by
putting students in the game according to their own needs, while conducting
research and developing experiences within the classroom. Based on such
considerations, Bergmann and Sams’ (2012) Flipped
Classroom (FC) methodology is commonly used in the project Senza Zaino’s
setting, where groups of students select a theme on which they could work
autonomously at home and then explain it to their classmates through varied
typologies of contents. Concurrently, teacher-centred lesson is abolished.
Indeed, teachers take the floor only to provide support, provide final
observations, and make a recap. An additional strategy deserving attention is Reading
Aloud (RA), in which an adult reads a text and the
following exchange of ideas fosters the students’ processes of metacognition;
moreover, RA increases lexical competence, develops the ability to discern the
meaning of words in given contexts, and strengthens spoken and argumentative
skills.
Drawing on the data analysis, some elements emerge,
which are in line with both previous studies and the latest pedagogical models.
Additionally, other elements pave the way for new teaching-learning
perspectives to be further
explored.
First, as Cornoldi et al. (2015) note, an efficient and aware study
method is a key tool for every student to face educational challenges.
Arguably, its absence is a source of anxiety and insecurity. Concerning this,
primary school plays a meaningful role in making students gradually able to
control their own set of strategies, which are functional to optimize time and the
quality of their learning (Pelizzoni et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, the focus group reveals that the development of a study method is
seen by teachers as both an isolated process to be undertaken as a home
assignment, delegated to each individual child or, at best, to their parents—that
is, two parties that cannot be held fully responsible and do not have the
homeschooling tools to support such pedagogical effort.
Study
skills prove to be based on three main constructs (Cottini, 2006), such as:
metacognition (Flavell, 1976), self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1986) and perception
of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1996), which must be developed through targeted
actions. On the one hand, their development partially depends on the learner’s
personal factors (Palmas et al., 2022); on the other hand, it arises largely
from the teacher-mediator’s critical attitude towards knowledge (Mason, 2000)—namely,
by giving effective and prompt feedback, encouraging students to remodel their individual
perceptions, and activating motivational changes (Urhahne,
2015). Lack of lexical competence, which is highly widespread among
Italian-speaking children as well, is perceived by the five teachers as a
factor hindering text comprehension, which pushes pupils to learn contents by
heart and limits their ability to present orally. In addition, the linearity of
the educational offer envisages study processes in which teachers offer
standardized contents and evaluation is based on the ability of students to
perform according to expectations. This does not leave room for a more personal
and critical attainment of knowledge.
For the purpose of making learners able to re-elaborate and master disciplinary contents,
the analysed data underline the teachers’ primary role in providing students
with a variety of methods and tools, by letting them free to challenge
themselves and choose the methods they prefer while studying. This process is
facilitated when knowledge is initially shared within the classroom so that it
becomes everyone’s heritage; thereafter, pupils will find it simpler to individually
take ownership of it through specific study phases and strategies (Andrich,
2015; De Beni and Zamperlin, 1993; Thomas &
Robinson, 1977), which they will be free to implement in a spontaneous and
autonomous way (De Min Tona et al., 2014). To this end, the five participants
stress the importance to both work on the definition of small but clear and meaningful
objectives and to promote formative assessment or—even better—self-assessment,
by encouraging students to create school rubrics or checklists that would
enhance their thinking about thinking processes (Lai, 2011).
The focus
group has also brought to light the teachers’ common ideal that the awareness of
a specific topic does not result from its continuous repetition. In contrast,
it is important to start from experience, by adopting the pupils’ holistic view
and making them accustomed to problematization—in line with Cornoldi’s
(1995) reflection—as well as to collective construction of knowledge. Involving
the latter interaction and approach to others’ ideas and abilities, it can be
supported by working with a peer, a tutor, or a teacher—who shall not be
required to impart contents from above. Moreover, the process could be
supported by implementing educational technologies in an effective fashion.
Indeed, as literature confirms, TELEs—if used in a technological-educational
perspective—foster self-regulative and cooperative-metacognitive attitudes,
while improving and innovating teaching-learning dynamics at the same time (Bottino,
2015; Persico & Steffens, 2017; Ranieri, 2022). The aforementioned
aspects, which have emerged from the focus group, reiterate the urgency
to enhance learn to learn processes (Haywood, 2010) in the educational
landscape.
Given the
low number of participants and the purposive nature of recruitment the sample
cannot be considered as representative (Jahoda & Cook, 1952). Therefore,
results obtained cannot be generalized to other contexts despite providing
useful indicators to reflect upon the issue under investigation, possibly to refine
and expand prospective research (Bocci et al., 2020). Future developments shall
entail the collection of additional empirical material—e.g., by involving
teachers working in different schools and by giving voice to the learners’
perceptions and opinions.
This paper
presented the results of a focus group consisting of five primary school
teachers to collect their views on the
importance of practicing good study skills since primary school, in an attempt to bring to light to both hypothetical
enabling and hindering factors. Findings confirm that such issue is the responsibility
of both teachers and students (Cornoldi, 1995) and could
be improved through several meaningful experiences—starting from the very
beginning of every child’s educational career. That is achieved by focusing
especially on metacognitive attitudes (Flavell, 1976), which in turn lead to
individual self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1986) and individual perception of
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1996). In particular, the study shows the need to work
on rooted and common current beliefs, habits and approaches while, at the same
time, fostering greater awareness in teaching staff concerning central subject
matters such as metacognition and educational technologies, which support the development
of study processes. The reliability of results and their interpretation is
increased by the choice to contribute to this long-debated issue by developing
a bottom-up argument—that is, a reasoning that is grounded on the direct
involvement of teachers, who walk the field, and build on their perceptions,
feelings, and experiences (Bocci et al., 2020).
Acocella, I. (2008). Il Focus
Group: Teoria E Tecnica. FrancoAngeli.
Acocella, I. (2012). The Focus
Groups in Social Research: Advantages and Disadvantages. Quality &
Quantity, 46(4), 1125–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9600-4
Acocella, I., & Cataldi, S.
(2021). Using Focus Groups: Theory, Methodology, Practice. Springer.
Andrich, S. (2015). Strategie di lettura metacognitiva: Attività per comprendere i testi
in modo consapevole, riflessivo
e cooperativo. Erickson.
Bandura, A. (1996). Il senso
di autoefficacia: Aspettative
su di sé e azione (D.
Ianes, Ed.). Erickson.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A.
(2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day.
International Society for Technology in Education.
Bocci, F., Chiappetta Cajola, L., & Zucca, S. (2020). Gli studenti
con disabilità e con DSA presso
l’Università Roma Tre: Questioni
e considerazioni a margine
di una indagine esplorativa. Italian Journal of Special Education for
Inclusion, 8(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.7346/sipes-02-2020-09
Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample Size
for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 19(4), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053
Boninelli, M. L.
(2015). L’approccio metacognitivo
come didattica strategica
in risposta all’emergenza scolastica. Formazione
e insegnamento, 13(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XIII-01-15_08
Bottino, R. (2015). Evoluzione e prospettive nella ricerca in tecnologie didattiche. In V.
Campione (Ed.), La Didattica nell’era
digitale (pp. 23–38). il Mulino.
Cornoldi, C. (1995). Metacognizione e apprendimento.
il Mulino.
Cornoldi, C., &
De Beni, R. (2015). Imparare a studiare: Strategie, stili cognitivi, metacognizione e atteggiamenti nello studio: 10-15 anni. Erickson.
Cottini, L. (2006). La Didattica Metacognitiva. Università di Udine. https://www.fisica.uniud.it/URDF/masterDidSciUD/materiali/pdf/did_meta.pdf
De Beni, R., & Zamperlin, C. (1993). Guida allo
studio del testo di storia: Strategie
metacognitive per comprendere e ricordare.
Erickson.
De Min Tona, G., Fabris, M.,
Meneghetti, C., & Zamperlin, C. (2014). Le abilità di studio. Difficoltà
di Apprendimento e Didattica
Inclusiva, 2(1), 57–64.
Dunlap, J. C., & Grabinger,
S. (2008). Preparing Students for Lifelong Learning: A Review of Instructional
Features and Teaching Methodologies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(2),
6–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2003.tb00276.x
Elman, C., Gerring, J., Mahoney,
J., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (2020). Exploratory Research. In The
production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social science (pp. 17–41).
Cambridge University Press. http://people.soc.cornell.edu/swedberg/Exploratory%20Research.pdf
Entwistle, N. (2000, November
10). Promoting Deep Learning Through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual
Frameworks and Educational Contexts. 1st Annual Conference ESRC Teaching and
Learning Research Programme (TLRP). 1st Annual
Conference ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme
(TLRP), Leicester (UK). https://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/entwistle2000.pdf
Flavell, J. H. (1976).
Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature
of Intelligence (pp. 231–235). Erlbaum.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., &
Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?:
An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1),
59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Guest, G., Namey, E., &
McKenna, K. (2017). How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base
for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field Methods, 29(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X16639015
Haywood, H. C. (2010). Cognitive
Education: A Transactional Metacognitive Perspective. Journal of Cognitive
Education and Psychology, 9(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.9.1.21
Jahoda, M., & Cook, S. W.
(1952). Security Measures and Freedom of Thought. An Exploratory Study of the
Impact of Loyalty and Security Programs. The Yale Law Journal, 61(3),
295–333. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/13857/34_61YaleLJ295_1952_.pdf?sequence=2
Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition:
A Literature Review (Pearson’s Research Reports, pp. 1–40) [Research
Report]. Pearson. https://nuovoeutile.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdf
Mason, M. (2000). Teachers as
Critical Mediators of Knowledge. Journal of the Philosophy of Education,
34(2), 343–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00177
Mazzeo, R. (2005). L’organizzazione efficace
dell’apprendimento: Presonalizzazione
e metodo di studio. Erickson.
Meneghetti, C., Zamperlin, C., Fabris, M., Rizzato, R., Palamà,
R., & De Beni, R. (2016). Studenti universitari in difficoltà: Esperienza di un percorso per la promozione delle abilità di studio. Psicologia
clinica dello sviluppo, 20(3), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1449/85048
Merton, R. K. (1973). The
Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Incvestigations
(4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1987). Three
Fragments from a Sociologist’s Notebooks: Establishing the Phenomenon,
Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials. Annual Review of
Sociology, 13(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.000245
MIUR. (2012). Indicazioni
nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia
e del primo ciclo d’istruzione
[Guidelines]. Ministero dell’Istruzione,
dell’Università e della Ricerca. https://www.miur.gov.it/documents/20182/51310/DM+254_2012.pdf
Orsi, M. (2016). A scuola senza zaino: Il metodo del curricolo globale per una didattica innovativa. Centro studi Erickson.
Palmas, C., Mauri, C., Scionti,
N., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2022). Il benessere degli studenti tra autostima e rendimento scolastico. Ricerche Di Psicologia,
45(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3280/rip2022oa13718
Pelizzoni, I., Derba,
F., Tirelli, V., & Rollo, olores. (2017). Studio:
Strategie e metodi per allenare un’abilità multicomponenziale. Psicologia
Dell’educazione, 2017(2), 105–118.
Persico, D., & Steffens, K.
(2017). Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments.
In E. Duval, M. Sharples, & R. Sutherland (Eds.), Technology Enhanced
Learning (pp. 115–126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8_11
Ranieri, M. (2022). Competenze digitali per
insegnare: Modelli e proposte operative (1st ed.). Carocci.
Scierri, I. D. M.,
Bartolucci, M., & Batini, F. (2018). Il successo formativo per prevenire la dispersione: Gli effetti di una didattica attiva sul potenziamento delle strategie di studio nella scuola secondaria
di primo grado. Ricerche
di Pedagogia e Didattica.
Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 13, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1970-2221/7752
Semeraro, R. (2011). L’analisi qualitativa dei dati di ricerca
in educazione. Giornale
Italiano Della Ricerca Educativa
– Italian Journal of Educational Research, 7, 97–106. https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/sird/article/view/267
Stagi, L. (2000). Il focus group
come tecnica di valutazione:
Pregi, difetti, potenzialità. Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, 20,
67–88. http://www.laboratorioaltierospinelli.org/giornalonline/numero20/Strumenti/S3/03_Stagi_Il_Focus_Group_come_tecnica_di_valutazione.pdf
Swedberg, R. (Ed.). (2014). Theorizing
in Social Science: The Context of Discovery. Stanford University Press.
Thomas, E. L., & Robinson, H.
A. (1977). Improving Reading in Every Class: A Sourcebook for Teachers
(2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Urhahne, D. (2015).
Teacher Behavior as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Teacher Judgment and
Students’ Motivation and Emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45,
73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.006
Young, D. S., & Casey, E. A.
(2018). An Examination of the Sufficiency of Small Qualitative Samples. Social
Work Research, 43(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svy026
Zammuner, V. L.
(2003). I focus group. il Mulino.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming
a Self-Regulated Learner: Which Are the Key Subprocesses? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5