My reaction to this article is that it makes sense for students who have a supportive, pro-education home life with relatively healthy caregivers or mentors who have the luxury to learn instead of taking care of younger siblings, caring for a parent, working to keep the rent paid, and have hope that learning will benefit them. Unfortunately, we have a lot of kids who are living in extreme poverty, are food and housing insecure, who live in dangerous neighborhoods and are focused on survival. I don't think these are the children who are the focus of Zimmerman's model of self-regulation.

Teaching these skills is not enough - it has to be reinforced at home and/or through after-school and mentoring programs. If one's parents or caregivers didn't have a positive school experience or aren't available to encourage self-regulating behaviors, it's a lot to expect a child to do this on their own, especially if their peers are presenting alternatives.

Zimmerman doesn't qualify that these are positive thoughts, feelings & behaviors. Some young children present at school with negative self-esteem due to experiencing abuse, neglect and other adverse childhood events, such as homelessness, caregiver addiction, etc. Self-regulation is a lofty goal when these kids are struggling to survive.

Perhaps because they're too busy teaching to the standardized test, trying to meet students' psychological and emotional needs, filling in as parent surrogates,, dealing with a lack of respect from the general public and legislators . . .

Checklists or rubrics for self-assessment seem to support self-regulation. My challenge with these methods is to get students to use them.

I'm not sure I understand this statement - competition can be motivating for some students. I think it depends on how learning is assessed and reinforced, and the students' goals. Valedictorian or passing?

Zimmerman doesn't address the concept of "ease" - some skills come more easy for some folks vs. others. Should we persist at learning something that is frustrating and we don't particularly enjoy to the detriment of discovering another subject/activity that we have greater aptitude and success? And what about the role of the teacher? Zimmerman suggests that learning is completely up to the student, yet how many students have been discouraged by teachers or other authority figures? I'm guessing that most experts had a cheerleader or two, as well as access to resources to facilitate their learning.

Not everyone is willing or able to dedicate that much time and intensity into a particular area, and make the necessary sacrifices to achieve this - expertise isn't necessarily the goal.

How do we create interest/desire for learning? This suggests that a person could be interested in anything - I suppose that's possible but we also have preferences. And being interested/curious in a particular aspect of a topic doesn't cause one to want to learn more. I listened to a radio program today that featured a very engaging & enthusiastic paleontologist talking about new dinosaur fossil discoveries in Scotland. I learned a little bit more about dinosaurs & enjoyed the experience; however, it didn't lead me to an internet search to learn more about dinosaurs and I'm not sure how much of the information I'll retain unless I tell someone else what I learned. My point is that interest is not enough - how does one sustain that interest in order for higher-level learning to happen? Students get to college eager to dive into an area of study only to be told that you have to take classes in subjects that may not interest you - or- you can't limit yourself to introductory level courses - you have to pick a major and study a subject in depth, even though you're not interested to that degree.

What happens when the student sets their goals too low? Don't we rely on the subject expert (teacher) to identify how many and which problems need to be solved in order to develop skills? Or are these students setting "sub goals" - e.g. I'll do 5 problems and then play a video game for 15 minutes, then do 5 more problems until I finish my homework?

How quaint that MTV was the distraction. Imagine how Tracy would handle a Smartphone!

On the other hand, scientific breakthroughs occur regularly, as do re-interpretations of data based on "new" information. This year, interstitium was "discovered" as a complex organ system in the human body that may explain, in part, why and how cancer spreads throughout the body. Is this the science behind chi, the life force that explains health and illness in some Eastern practices? More astrophysicists are supporting the theory that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, based on probability calculations. Although it is crucial to be skeptical and seek out evidence, sometimes we lack the necessary tools or understanding to explain certain phenomena today.

This article was written before the great culture war between intelligent design and evolution that apparently led some school boards to provide "equal time" to both approaches in science classes.

I'm left wondering what has changed - where did workers develop these skills in the past, or have our workplaces changed significantly and demand a new set of skills? Or is it that a 4-year college degree came with a "seal of approval" that indicated to employers that 21 Century skills were part of the package?

I'm curious about the factors that make up these skill areas. To create more inclusive workplaces, it seems to me that developing cultural competence (or at least an awareness and acceptance of cultural perspectives different from one's own or the majority) is essential.

Interesting that these intrapersonal competencies were not reflected in the O*NET database.

honesty-humility

Now being referred to as "emotionality," a preferable term but one that is still problematic for me.

Important point!

Reaction: we have to consider from whom those opinions are gathered (vs. those not asked) and how tradition can be problematic when based on the traditions of a select and/or elite group.

Better idea - let's change the conditions that contribute to poverty and educational disadvantage. Seems like it would be more effective and efficient than trying to change individual personalities.

growth mindset - Dweck

Side note: was not aware of this branch of psychology. Unclear how it differs from psychology in general.

I'm becoming more cognizant about how aging is affecting my learning strategies, and increasingly aware of barriers to learning that I'm experiencing due to changing technologies.

Yet we know how problematic these measures can be . . .

A curious term to use - seems like these were necessary skills in the 20th C workplace, too. I have only the mid-1970s and beyond as a frame of reference, though!