30-Day Challenge - Self-Regulation

The Self-Regulation Challenge is a four-week practice plan. The learner treats each study method as a tool, records what each method actually does, and ends the month with a sequence of methods that differs only slightly from the old one. In this plan, self-regulation means watching what the methods do and changing the ones that do not do what they are meant to do.

The record is a four-column sheet. The learner fills it in week 1 and keeps using it through the month.

Core takeaways

• Week 1 fills a four-column sheet: the methods used, the effect each is expected to have, the effect observed, and how each feels. No method changes in week 1.
• Week 2 modifies or replaces the methods with no observed effect. Review that only asks whether an item looks familiar is replaced with recall.
• Week 3 varies the time and effort on each method and runs a test every three to seven days, so the cause of each change can be seen.
• Week 4 puts the better methods into a sequence that changes about 20% of the old system. If the new system fails, the change was too large.
• Time spent on a method reflects habit. It does not show how well the method works.
• Problems that appear only when the workload is heavy belong to the Self-Management Challenge. This month does not cover them.

Methods are tools

The month trains the learner to treat each method as a tool: to know what it is for and how to use it. Staying aware of the methods and correcting them while the study continues is a skill. Keeping the sheet over the month builds that skill. One week does not build it. Conditions that fail when the workload is heavy are covered by Self-Management Challenge, which contains the pressure week. The pressure week is a planned perfect day. It is not the end of this month. The later weeks of this month isolate variables and put in place a slightly new sequence.

Week 1: fill the sheet

In week 1 the learner fills a four-column sheet and changes no method. Filling the sheet is the mapping. Column one lists the methods actually used. Column two records the effect each method is thought to have on memory and depth. Column three records the effect observed after using it. Column four records how easy or hard the method feels, and why. Methods are added to the sheet throughout the week as the learner notices them. The sheet is the only record. The week does not ask for a diary of when attention drifted.

Uncertainty on the early rows is normal. A careful estimate is better than leaving a row empty until the effect is certain. Many methods will turn out to be leftover habits rather than tools the learner chose. Finding those leftover habits is the purpose of the week. A row with no observed effect yet still belongs on the sheet. The estimate in column two is the first observation.

The month depends on three skills: noticing one’s own thinking, watching cause and effect, and making a change that fits the goal. The first two skills, noticing and monitoring, are trained by Metacognition - The Control Layer. Week 1 only records. Changes begin in week 2.

Week 2: change the methods that do nothing

In week 2 the learner works from the sheet. Methods that are ineffective or do not engage the mind are picked out and then modified or replaced. These are often the passive methods. The learner reflects on the changes every few days.

The rows whose method shows no observed effect are the ones to change. Four questions guide the changes. The first is to practise in the way the knowledge will have to be used. The second is to connect details to the big picture. The third is to find gaps, preferring recall over recognition. The fourth is to remove set-up that does not process anything. Notes written only to be reread are the usual case of such set-up.

Recognition means an item seems familiar when it is shown. Recall means the learner can produce the item from memory. A person can recognise a familiar coin and still be unable to draw it from memory. Tests usually require production, like drawing the coin. Review that relies on recognition is the method to drop. The recall method to use instead is Spaced Interleaved Retrieval.

Often no adjustment is known to be right in advance. Each adjustment is a guess, and the observation after it shows whether the guess held. That loop is the one described in Kolbs Experiential Cycle: what happened, how it felt and why, what rule that suggests, and what changes next time. Discomfort during the week means a new habit is being trained. It does not mean the week is failing.

Week 3: find out which change did what

Week 3 isolates the adjustments made in week 2. The question is which adjustment actually caused a change. The learner varies the time and effort spent on each method so that the cause of each change can be seen. A test runs every three to seven days. The test can take three forms. Questions check whether an item can be produced. A small project asks the method to do a job. A brain dump shows what is left when no prompt is given. These three forms are the plan’s default choice. No measurement established them as a rule.

Isolating the methods usually shows the same things. Reducing a method that has been used for a long time often does no harm. A method that took little time was often doing more than it seemed. Time spent on a method reflects habit. It does not show how well the method works. A method that took a large share of the week can be cut back without the test score changing. A short method that seemed minor can be the one that produced the score.

Finding which method caused which change is a skill the learner keeps using for life. One week is not enough to learn it. Repeating the loop for weeks or months is normal. Week 3 starts the loop. It does not finish it.

Week 4: build the new sequence

In week 4 the learner designs a learning system that uses the better methods in a logical sequence. A daily schedule is allowed. The plan caps the change at about 20% of the old system. About a fifth changes, and the rest stays as it was. The fifth is a default chosen to prevent overload. No measurement established it. The new sequence runs for a week or more. Adjustments during that run stay minor. Week 4 is needed because a list of adjustments that has not been put into a sequence becomes the next overload. The findings from weeks 2 and 3 have to go into a sequence that can be run on an ordinary day. Otherwise they remain a list.

If the new system fails, the change was probably too large. The next step is a redesign that puts more of the old sequence back. A larger rebuild is the wrong step. After a couple of weeks of stability, the learner can run mapping, adjustment, and experiment again. The second run uses the same four-column sheet. It does not start from an empty set of methods.

What the month leaves

The month ends with a slightly new sequence of methods that has been run long enough to be familiar. If the sequence fails, the change was too large.

Three things show that the month has gone wrong. If methods change during week 1, the sheet has been skipped. If week 4 rebuilds the whole system, the change has passed the 20% cap; that rebuild is what the cap is meant to prevent. If the reader’s problem is workload, the reader is on the wrong track; the Self-Management Challenge covers workload. Each of these is a sign to stop. After stopping, the reader repeats the week. If the day itself is what fails, the reader moves to the Self-Management track.

How to practice this

1. In week 1, fill the four-column sheet: method used, expected effect, observed effect, and how it feels and why. Change no method this week. Notice which rows are leftover habits rather than tools you chose.
2. In week 2, modify or replace the methods whose rows show no observed effect. Drop any review that only checks whether an item looks familiar. Notice that discomfort means a new habit is being trained.
3. In week 3, vary the time and effort on each method so the cause of any change stays clear. Run a test every three to seven days: questions, a small project, or a brain dump. Notice whether a method that took a large share of the week can shrink without the score moving.
4. In week 4, arrange the better methods into a sequence that changes about 20% of the old one. Run the new sequence for a week or more. Notice whether it holds on an ordinary day.
5. If the new system fails, redesign it and put more of the old sequence back. Notice that the failure means the change was too large. After a couple of weeks of stability, run the same loop again from the same sheet.

Related pages

• 30-Day Challenges: the parent page for the five tracks.
• Self-Regulation: the parent dimension. It covers more than this month’s inventory.

Open questions

How a reader who uses only two methods fills a four-column sheet.

When leftover-habit methods should be kept because they still do one small useful job.

Sources

• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. Monitoring and control are parts of a cycle of forethought, performance, and self-reflection. The four-column sheet is one way to begin the monitoring.
• Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Erlbaum. Describes studying as a COPES loop: conditions, operations, products, evaluations, standards.
• Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26). Academic Press. Names monitoring and control as the two operations of metamemory.
• Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513–541. Shows that recognition and recall are separate processes. Finding an item familiar is not the same as producing it.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. Retrieval practice works better than restudy that only asks for recognition.
• Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314. Habits triggered by cues explain why leftover methods stay in use after they stop being useful.