This audiobook covers the basics of self-regulated learning. We include examples of primary research and practical application of the theory. Be sure to check out our accompanying graphic organizer. It would be helpful to have it printed and ready for your reference. The audiobook is a little over 13 minutes in length.
srl audiobook download
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Bibliography
The following bibliography is provided to help guide a novice researcher into the field of self-regulated learning. Information is organized according to the following categories: (1) Overview of Self-regulated learning theory, (2) Primary Research, (3) Instrumentation, and (4) Other Related Materials. The overview of self-regulated learning theory provides an introduction about the theory and its history as well as the important figures in the field. Results from primary research show how self-regulated learning strategy instruction can be effective with different age groups and varying learning abilities. This compilation of research includes how theory is applied with multi-media and technology. For those interested in measurement in self-regulated learning, several articles that detail valid and reliable instruments are included. Finally, graphic organizers, information briefs, and practical examples applying self-regulated learning strategy instruction are provided.
srl bibliography download
srl bibliography download
Implications
Self-regulated learning has many implications for instructional practice. Teachers can incorporate self-regulated strategies as part of their daily instruction. Following Zimmerman’s Model of Self-Regulation, teachers can provide opportunities for students to practice goal setting and strategic planning, self-control and self-observation, and give students time to self-reflect on this process. Teachers can also provide immediate strategic feedback, teach students various study and learning strategies and allow time to practice these new strategies to enable their students to become self-regulated learners. All students should be required to set performance goals, engage in progress monitoring, and utilize self-reflective processes as part of their daily routine.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Selection
The Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) team accessed the databases in Gleeson Library, setting the criteria of full text, peer-reviewed articles. The key words used included, metacognition, self-regulation, motivation, study strategies, strategic learning, hypermedia, self efficacy, self control, self monitoring.
The initial search yielded over 500 citations. Then each team member identified 25 studies to review with full abstract and text. Out of the 25 the team selected 10-15 for further review.
The eight articles that were selected for review clustered around the concepts of application in basic academic areas or writing and math, use in hypermedia and finally study strategies. The selection was further discriminated by the articles that were written by people who are recognized as leaders in the area of SRL.
The initial search yielded over 500 citations. Then each team member identified 25 studies to review with full abstract and text. Out of the 25 the team selected 10-15 for further review.
The eight articles that were selected for review clustered around the concepts of application in basic academic areas or writing and math, use in hypermedia and finally study strategies. The selection was further discriminated by the articles that were written by people who are recognized as leaders in the area of SRL.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Azevedo (2008)
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Green, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45-72.
Introduction
Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, and Cromley have conducted many studies exploring students’ self-regulatory strategies while using hypermedia environments to learn about complex science topics. Because the effectiveness of hypermedia as a learning tool is often compromised when students ineffectively regulate their learning, previous research examined undergraduate students’ application of strategies for Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) within a hypermedia environment. In this study (Azevedo et al., 2008), the authors considered learning characteristics of a younger age group, and how learning and self-regulatory behaviors are influenced by external facilitation in the form of a tutor. The study has immediate relevance to the application of Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Instruction in classroom or tutoring situations, and concludes with guidelines for the design of instructional approaches for facilitating students’ self-regulatory practices.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of SRL and Externally-Facilitated Self-Regulated Learning (ERL) on adolescents’ learning with hypermedia. The circulatory system was chosen for the learning task because the researchers employed the same tools and materials to measure similar learning outcomes in previous studies (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004, Azevedo, et al. 2005, and Azevedo, Guthrie, & Seibert, 2004, among others). Azevedo, et al. asked the following research questions in this study:
1. Do different scaffolding conditions influence learners’ ability to shift to more sophisticated mental models of the circulatory system?
2. Do different scaffolding conditions lead learners to gain more declarative knowledge of the circulatory system?
3. How do different scaffolding conditions influence learners’ ability to regulate their learning? (p.49)
The effects of the experimental learning conditions were measured with pre- and post-tests, and recorded and coded student think-alouds.
Azevedo et al. use Winne’s model of SRL to guide their examination of SRL processes and their relationship to learning environment and learner characteristics. This model emphasizes analysis of the learning situation, setting of meaningful learning goals, selection of learning strategies, assessment of performance, and evaluation of understanding. The authors believe that scaffolding the application of SRL processes will guide students toward more effective learning behaviors and designed this study as part of a larger scheme to explore the potential of various scaffolding tactics.
Methods
Participants were 128 adolescents from 2 secondary schools (middle and high school) with average or little knowledge of the circulatory system, who were randomly assigned to ERL and SRL conditions. A commercial software application served as the hypermedia learning environment. Participants in both conditions were given an overall learning goal and a time limit. Participants in the ERL were also provided with access to a human tutor who used scripted prompts to provide scaffolding for self-regulatory processes. All participants were tested individually and asked to think aloud continuously while they learned.
Pre- and post-test mental models, collected in essay form, were assessed according to an extensive rubric and assigned a score for the purpose of analysis. Scores were also assigned for matching and labeling tasks and blood flow diagrams. The 85.3 hours of audio and video recorded think-alouds were transcribed and coded based on the same process developed by Azevedo and colleagues for previous SRL studies. Agreement between the two raters was established at .96 for mental model scoring and .98 for verbal protocols. Inconsistencies were resolved through discussion.
Results
A chi-square analysis of pre-test mental models revealed no difference between SRL and ERL groups. Post-test scores of mental models for the SRL condition changed very little compared to pre-test, but the mental models for the ERL condition showed substantial change (χ2=7.76, p =.02, Cramer’s V =.25).
For matching and labeling tasks, independent sample t tests found no significant differences between conditions at pretest. Matching task post-test revealed no significant differences between groups, but the ERL condition showed significantly greater improvement in the labeling task (t = −3.12, p < .05, η2 = .09). The flow diagram test showed results similar to the labeling task, with significantly greater improvement in the ERL condition (t = −2.85, p < .05, η2 = .06).
Verbal think-aloud protocols were analyzed in relationship to 33 SRL variables organized into the following categories: planning, monitoring, strategy use, handling task difficulty and demands, and interest. Raw counts of each participant’s SRL variables were converted to percentages representing the proportion of verbalizations that fit each variable, then compared to the median proportion for that variable. Chi-square analyses of variables revealed the following significant differences: In addition to seeking help from the tutor, participants in the ERL condition activated prior knowledge, and monitored their learning with feeling of knowing or judgment of learning, and monitoring progress towards goals more than participants in the SRL condition. Participants in the ERL condition also hypothesized, coordinated information sources, and used drawing, and mnemonics more than those in the SRL condition. Participants in the SRL condition relied on evaluating content, selecting new informational sources, re-reading, controlling the context, and time and effort planning more than participants in the ERL condition.
Results indicate significant overall differences between the SRL and ERL conditions in gains on the test of deep understanding, two of the three tests of declarative knowledge, and in the application of effective SRL strategies.
Discussion
The results of this study show that students can use hypermedia to learn about challenging science topics when prompted by a tutor to regulate their learning. The researchers’ hypotheses, related to the three research questions were all correct: ERL participants showed greater gains in mental models, declarative knowledge, and the use of effective SRL strategies. These findings are consistent with prior research conducted by the authors and others.
Limitations include participant age, prior knowledge classification, and the characteristics of the chosen hypermedia environment, which was designed for reference use, rather than as a teaching tool for meeting specific learning goals. The authors suggest that the addition of an animated blood flow diagram could make great strides toward student understanding of the “double loop” concept and thus contribute to higher scores on mental models.
Introduction
Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, and Cromley have conducted many studies exploring students’ self-regulatory strategies while using hypermedia environments to learn about complex science topics. Because the effectiveness of hypermedia as a learning tool is often compromised when students ineffectively regulate their learning, previous research examined undergraduate students’ application of strategies for Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) within a hypermedia environment. In this study (Azevedo et al., 2008), the authors considered learning characteristics of a younger age group, and how learning and self-regulatory behaviors are influenced by external facilitation in the form of a tutor. The study has immediate relevance to the application of Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Instruction in classroom or tutoring situations, and concludes with guidelines for the design of instructional approaches for facilitating students’ self-regulatory practices.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of SRL and Externally-Facilitated Self-Regulated Learning (ERL) on adolescents’ learning with hypermedia. The circulatory system was chosen for the learning task because the researchers employed the same tools and materials to measure similar learning outcomes in previous studies (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004, Azevedo, et al. 2005, and Azevedo, Guthrie, & Seibert, 2004, among others). Azevedo, et al. asked the following research questions in this study:
1. Do different scaffolding conditions influence learners’ ability to shift to more sophisticated mental models of the circulatory system?
2. Do different scaffolding conditions lead learners to gain more declarative knowledge of the circulatory system?
3. How do different scaffolding conditions influence learners’ ability to regulate their learning? (p.49)
The effects of the experimental learning conditions were measured with pre- and post-tests, and recorded and coded student think-alouds.
Azevedo et al. use Winne’s model of SRL to guide their examination of SRL processes and their relationship to learning environment and learner characteristics. This model emphasizes analysis of the learning situation, setting of meaningful learning goals, selection of learning strategies, assessment of performance, and evaluation of understanding. The authors believe that scaffolding the application of SRL processes will guide students toward more effective learning behaviors and designed this study as part of a larger scheme to explore the potential of various scaffolding tactics.
Methods
Participants were 128 adolescents from 2 secondary schools (middle and high school) with average or little knowledge of the circulatory system, who were randomly assigned to ERL and SRL conditions. A commercial software application served as the hypermedia learning environment. Participants in both conditions were given an overall learning goal and a time limit. Participants in the ERL were also provided with access to a human tutor who used scripted prompts to provide scaffolding for self-regulatory processes. All participants were tested individually and asked to think aloud continuously while they learned.
Pre- and post-test mental models, collected in essay form, were assessed according to an extensive rubric and assigned a score for the purpose of analysis. Scores were also assigned for matching and labeling tasks and blood flow diagrams. The 85.3 hours of audio and video recorded think-alouds were transcribed and coded based on the same process developed by Azevedo and colleagues for previous SRL studies. Agreement between the two raters was established at .96 for mental model scoring and .98 for verbal protocols. Inconsistencies were resolved through discussion.
Results
A chi-square analysis of pre-test mental models revealed no difference between SRL and ERL groups. Post-test scores of mental models for the SRL condition changed very little compared to pre-test, but the mental models for the ERL condition showed substantial change (χ2=7.76, p =.02, Cramer’s V =.25).
For matching and labeling tasks, independent sample t tests found no significant differences between conditions at pretest. Matching task post-test revealed no significant differences between groups, but the ERL condition showed significantly greater improvement in the labeling task (t = −3.12, p < .05, η2 = .09). The flow diagram test showed results similar to the labeling task, with significantly greater improvement in the ERL condition (t = −2.85, p < .05, η2 = .06).
Verbal think-aloud protocols were analyzed in relationship to 33 SRL variables organized into the following categories: planning, monitoring, strategy use, handling task difficulty and demands, and interest. Raw counts of each participant’s SRL variables were converted to percentages representing the proportion of verbalizations that fit each variable, then compared to the median proportion for that variable. Chi-square analyses of variables revealed the following significant differences: In addition to seeking help from the tutor, participants in the ERL condition activated prior knowledge, and monitored their learning with feeling of knowing or judgment of learning, and monitoring progress towards goals more than participants in the SRL condition. Participants in the ERL condition also hypothesized, coordinated information sources, and used drawing, and mnemonics more than those in the SRL condition. Participants in the SRL condition relied on evaluating content, selecting new informational sources, re-reading, controlling the context, and time and effort planning more than participants in the ERL condition.
Results indicate significant overall differences between the SRL and ERL conditions in gains on the test of deep understanding, two of the three tests of declarative knowledge, and in the application of effective SRL strategies.
Discussion
The results of this study show that students can use hypermedia to learn about challenging science topics when prompted by a tutor to regulate their learning. The researchers’ hypotheses, related to the three research questions were all correct: ERL participants showed greater gains in mental models, declarative knowledge, and the use of effective SRL strategies. These findings are consistent with prior research conducted by the authors and others.
Limitations include participant age, prior knowledge classification, and the characteristics of the chosen hypermedia environment, which was designed for reference use, rather than as a teaching tool for meeting specific learning goals. The authors suggest that the addition of an animated blood flow diagram could make great strides toward student understanding of the “double loop” concept and thus contribute to higher scores on mental models.
Cleary & Zimmerman (2004)
Cleary, T.J. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of
student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.
Literature Review
The reason I chose to review Cleary and Zimmermans’s (2004) article was due to my interest in Zimmerman’s Model of Self-Regulation and I wanted to read other research he has completed relating to self-regulated learning. I was also interested in this study because this training program was implemented in a middle school setting.
Problem
This case study implemented a training program, Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP), which focused on how middle school students could be empowered to obtain greater control over their learning and become more proactive, self-motivated learners. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) describe how numerous middle school students lack self-efficacy, the belief of possessing the ability to learn a particular academic task, which may lead to breakdowns in academic self-regulation such as lack of attention in class, not preparing for tests, and even choosing not to attend school. Middle school students are expected to engage in more independent study time, usually are assigned more homework, and are expected to be able to manage the different assignments from several teachers. To be able to accomplish all of this, students need to have a collection of study and self-regulation strategies they can apply to their learning. Many struggling middle school students do not possess self-regulatory skills that they can access.
SREP was developed from social-cognitive theory and research that integrates features of the problem-solving approach with Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulation. Zimmerman’s model, which includes three cyclical phases of forethought, performance control, and self-reflection, illustrates the process students should use to regulate their academic behavior and beliefs. SREP is a two-part approach in which a SRC (self-regulated learning coach) uses microanalytic assessment procedures to assess students’ self-regulated thinking and study strategies, and then trains students to use these strategies along with newly learned strategies in a cyclical, self-regulation feedback loop.
In part one, diagnostic assessment, students are presented with specific learning situations or problems and asked how they would handle these problems. This assessment evaluates students’ knowledge base of learning strategies and identifies the motivational and strategic weaknesses in students. The ultimate goal of the SRC during part two, developing the self-regulated learner, is to modify and change students’ deficits to strengths by empowering and instilling in the students that academic success is under their control. Students are taught various study and learning strategies as well as self-regulation strategies. Then students are taught how to use the cyclical, self-regulation feedback loop. This program is not based on a script or manual of specific procedures that must be followed and allows for adaptations and modifications to meet the specific motivational and self-regulated needs of each individual student. SREP was pilot tested with a variety of middle school students in a suburban school district.
Implementation and Results
Anna, a 12-year-old Caucasian student, participated in the implementation of SREP. This case study demonstrated the procedures for implementing the components and steps in a secondary setting as well as the processes and techniques used by an SRC. Anna participated in eight 35-minute sessions of individualized training with the SRC. After analysis of Anna’s performance, it was determined that she was performing poorly in science. The SRC examined Anna’s repertoire of the study strategies she used to prepare for science exams and results showed Anna had limited knowledge of effective study strategies. The SRC used microanalytic procedures and asked Anna various forethought, performance control, and self-reflection phase questions while Anna thought aloud as she performed her study strategies.
The miroanalytic assessment showed that Anna was engaged in a negative motivational cycle with low self-efficacy perceptions, poor self-awareness of the causes of her struggles, and the belief that she could not improve her failing grades. The SRC used graphing procedures to improve her self-awareness of her study strategies and showed the link between ineffective study strategies and failing grades. During training sessions, the SRC and Anna discussed and practiced applying several alternative strategies that Anna could use while studying for her science tests. The SRC provided feedback and prompts to Anna on her use of the new strategies to help her internalize the recently acquired learning strategies. Anna then followed the cyclical loop to set goals, self-record performance and outcomes, and evaluate her goal progress and strategy effectiveness. Anna had set a goal of achieving a 75% on her next science test and used her newly acquired study strategies. She scored a 90% and the SRC showed her the connection between her grade and the strategies she used to prepare for the test.
Critique
After reading about the components of SREP, this case study provided a nice illustration of the program in action. I was able to follow Anna and the SRC through all steps and procedures to understand how the program worked. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) provided helpful tables and figures with examples of questions asked and procedures followed during the diagnostic assessment, self-regulation microanalytic assessment questions, goals and intervention procedures used in the self-regulated learner development component, and a self-regulation graph used to train students to use the cyclical feedback loop of self-regulation.
I would have liked there to be more information about other students being trained with the SREP and its effectiveness. Since this article was published in 2004, I searched for more current articles that used this program and found SREP was implemented with high school students in 2008 as a tier two pull-out intervention program (Cleary, Platten, & Nelson, 2008). I was able to see that SREP continues to be successful with a variety of students. There was not any further information about the pilot study. I would have liked to have known more about it and if any changes were made to this program as a result of the pilot study.
Discussion
Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) found SREP to be an effective intervention but did state its limitations. Student participation in class as well as quality of peer relationships have an impact on increasing student motivation, study strategies, and self-regulatory skills which result in students’ success in school. Student cognitive, motivational, and cultural differences also limit the effectiveness of SREP. It was made clear that SREP’s procedures should not be rigidly applied to all students as this program is intended to take into account the characteristics of individual students. Quality of teacher feedback and the amount of chances students have to engage in the cyclical feedback loop impact the effectiveness of SREP when these strategies are implemented in the classroom.
Theoretical Implications
SREP was developed from social-cognitive theory and research. From a social cognitive perspective, self-regulation requires learner choice. Classic social cognitive perspective viewed self-regulation as including the processes of self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. The cyclical model Zimmerman created was a result of social cognitive theory’s emphasis on the interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors.
Methodological Implications
Cleary and Zimmerman (2008) highly recommend that school psychologists supplement their norm-referenced assessments with microanalytic procedures when assessing children who have motivational and strategy deficiencies. Norm-referenced tests are important in evaluating a student’s cognitive, academic, and emotional profile but norm-referenced tests do not provide enough information about student’s knowledge and use of study and learning strategies.
Practical Implications
The SREP has many implications for school psychologists, counselors, and teachers. Due to SREP being an individualized assessment and intervention program, school psychologists and counselors may be able to provide this type of training although teachers may find it more difficult with large class sizes. However, teachers can incorporate SREP principles into their daily activities to increase students’ self-regulation problem-solving skills.
Reference
Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 70-107.
student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.
Literature Review
The reason I chose to review Cleary and Zimmermans’s (2004) article was due to my interest in Zimmerman’s Model of Self-Regulation and I wanted to read other research he has completed relating to self-regulated learning. I was also interested in this study because this training program was implemented in a middle school setting.
Problem
This case study implemented a training program, Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP), which focused on how middle school students could be empowered to obtain greater control over their learning and become more proactive, self-motivated learners. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) describe how numerous middle school students lack self-efficacy, the belief of possessing the ability to learn a particular academic task, which may lead to breakdowns in academic self-regulation such as lack of attention in class, not preparing for tests, and even choosing not to attend school. Middle school students are expected to engage in more independent study time, usually are assigned more homework, and are expected to be able to manage the different assignments from several teachers. To be able to accomplish all of this, students need to have a collection of study and self-regulation strategies they can apply to their learning. Many struggling middle school students do not possess self-regulatory skills that they can access.
SREP was developed from social-cognitive theory and research that integrates features of the problem-solving approach with Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulation. Zimmerman’s model, which includes three cyclical phases of forethought, performance control, and self-reflection, illustrates the process students should use to regulate their academic behavior and beliefs. SREP is a two-part approach in which a SRC (self-regulated learning coach) uses microanalytic assessment procedures to assess students’ self-regulated thinking and study strategies, and then trains students to use these strategies along with newly learned strategies in a cyclical, self-regulation feedback loop.
In part one, diagnostic assessment, students are presented with specific learning situations or problems and asked how they would handle these problems. This assessment evaluates students’ knowledge base of learning strategies and identifies the motivational and strategic weaknesses in students. The ultimate goal of the SRC during part two, developing the self-regulated learner, is to modify and change students’ deficits to strengths by empowering and instilling in the students that academic success is under their control. Students are taught various study and learning strategies as well as self-regulation strategies. Then students are taught how to use the cyclical, self-regulation feedback loop. This program is not based on a script or manual of specific procedures that must be followed and allows for adaptations and modifications to meet the specific motivational and self-regulated needs of each individual student. SREP was pilot tested with a variety of middle school students in a suburban school district.
Implementation and Results
Anna, a 12-year-old Caucasian student, participated in the implementation of SREP. This case study demonstrated the procedures for implementing the components and steps in a secondary setting as well as the processes and techniques used by an SRC. Anna participated in eight 35-minute sessions of individualized training with the SRC. After analysis of Anna’s performance, it was determined that she was performing poorly in science. The SRC examined Anna’s repertoire of the study strategies she used to prepare for science exams and results showed Anna had limited knowledge of effective study strategies. The SRC used microanalytic procedures and asked Anna various forethought, performance control, and self-reflection phase questions while Anna thought aloud as she performed her study strategies.
The miroanalytic assessment showed that Anna was engaged in a negative motivational cycle with low self-efficacy perceptions, poor self-awareness of the causes of her struggles, and the belief that she could not improve her failing grades. The SRC used graphing procedures to improve her self-awareness of her study strategies and showed the link between ineffective study strategies and failing grades. During training sessions, the SRC and Anna discussed and practiced applying several alternative strategies that Anna could use while studying for her science tests. The SRC provided feedback and prompts to Anna on her use of the new strategies to help her internalize the recently acquired learning strategies. Anna then followed the cyclical loop to set goals, self-record performance and outcomes, and evaluate her goal progress and strategy effectiveness. Anna had set a goal of achieving a 75% on her next science test and used her newly acquired study strategies. She scored a 90% and the SRC showed her the connection between her grade and the strategies she used to prepare for the test.
Critique
After reading about the components of SREP, this case study provided a nice illustration of the program in action. I was able to follow Anna and the SRC through all steps and procedures to understand how the program worked. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) provided helpful tables and figures with examples of questions asked and procedures followed during the diagnostic assessment, self-regulation microanalytic assessment questions, goals and intervention procedures used in the self-regulated learner development component, and a self-regulation graph used to train students to use the cyclical feedback loop of self-regulation.
I would have liked there to be more information about other students being trained with the SREP and its effectiveness. Since this article was published in 2004, I searched for more current articles that used this program and found SREP was implemented with high school students in 2008 as a tier two pull-out intervention program (Cleary, Platten, & Nelson, 2008). I was able to see that SREP continues to be successful with a variety of students. There was not any further information about the pilot study. I would have liked to have known more about it and if any changes were made to this program as a result of the pilot study.
Discussion
Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) found SREP to be an effective intervention but did state its limitations. Student participation in class as well as quality of peer relationships have an impact on increasing student motivation, study strategies, and self-regulatory skills which result in students’ success in school. Student cognitive, motivational, and cultural differences also limit the effectiveness of SREP. It was made clear that SREP’s procedures should not be rigidly applied to all students as this program is intended to take into account the characteristics of individual students. Quality of teacher feedback and the amount of chances students have to engage in the cyclical feedback loop impact the effectiveness of SREP when these strategies are implemented in the classroom.
Theoretical Implications
SREP was developed from social-cognitive theory and research. From a social cognitive perspective, self-regulation requires learner choice. Classic social cognitive perspective viewed self-regulation as including the processes of self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. The cyclical model Zimmerman created was a result of social cognitive theory’s emphasis on the interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors.
Methodological Implications
Cleary and Zimmerman (2008) highly recommend that school psychologists supplement their norm-referenced assessments with microanalytic procedures when assessing children who have motivational and strategy deficiencies. Norm-referenced tests are important in evaluating a student’s cognitive, academic, and emotional profile but norm-referenced tests do not provide enough information about student’s knowledge and use of study and learning strategies.
Practical Implications
The SREP has many implications for school psychologists, counselors, and teachers. Due to SREP being an individualized assessment and intervention program, school psychologists and counselors may be able to provide this type of training although teachers may find it more difficult with large class sizes. However, teachers can incorporate SREP principles into their daily activities to increase students’ self-regulation problem-solving skills.
Reference
Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 70-107.
Sawyer, Graham & Harris (1992)
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340-52.
Chosen Study
This study is noteworthy because of its contribution to the field of self-regulated learning studies with students with learning disabilities (LD). The basis of this study is anchored on improving academic skills using cognitive strategy instruction. The study’s simple but straightforward methodology merits review by novice researchers. The statistical analysis was simple and easy to understand. This research is a good model to review when searching for examples of how to show the effectiveness of multicomponent strategy intervention models for students with LD.
Problem
Sawyer, Graham & Harris sought to address differential effects in the writing of students with LD in four experimental conditions: (1) full self-regulated strategy development (SRSD); (2) SRSD without explicit self-regulation, (3) direct teaching of strategy usage, and (4) nonrandomized practice-control. In this study, direct teaching was defined as teaching without (1) explicit self-regulation procedures, (2) the use of personalized self-instructions to guide the use of strategies, (3) modeling by teacher, and (4) collaborative practice with the teacher.
This study replicates and extends a previous study conducted by Graham and Harris (1989b). The results showed that both strategy instruction conditions resulted in meaningful and lasting effects on the schematic structure and quality of students’ compositions. Building from the Graham and Harris (1989b) study, the authors of this study sought to determine whether explicit self-regulation meaningfully augments strategy instruction when combined with instruction in the significance of the strategy.
The study design enabled the identification of the relative contributions of instructional components responsible for the change in learning. Separating the components allowed the authors to measure the differential effects of the instructional types at posttest, generalization and maintenance. New to this study was the addition of a practice control group. The authors also used a social validation condition of normally achieving students for comparison. The authors were able to see differential effects in schematic structure and quality and levels of self-efficacy in students with LD when compared to the control group and normally achieving students in varying conditions.
Methods
Three groups of students were selected for the study. Thirty-three fifth- and sixth grade students with LD were randomly assigned to the three strategy instructional conditions. Another 10 randomly selected fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD participated in a nonrandomized practice-control condition.
Students with LD were identified according to the following criteria: (a) identification as LD by their local school district, (b) IQ scores between 80 and 120 on a norm-referenced intelligence test, (c) achievement that was at least 2 years below grade level in one or more academic areas, (d) absence of other handicapping conditions, and (e) interviews with the resource teacher indicating significant composition problems were evident. Data reported a mean grade equivalent delay of approximately 2 years in both reading and writing. For sixth grade students, reading delay was 2.6 years with a writing delay of 2 years.
Graham and Harris used several instruments to measure the different effects of the study. A story grammar scale was used to measure sensitive effects of an instructional program. This scale was deemed valid in several separate investigations. The scale was shown to be highly correlated with other measures assessing the overall quality in students’ written work. To assess the quality of students’ stories, a holistic rating scale using a 7-point scale was created. Samples of high-, medium- and low-scoring compositions were used in grading the students’ writing sample. Two former elementary-school teachers who were unfamiliar with the study scored the writing samples. They were trained in using the holistic rating scale. The 2 scores were averaged and reported.
The authors used measures developed by Graham and Harris (1989b) for assessing students’ self-efficacy in writing. The instrument was designed in accordance with procedures outlined by Bandura and Schunk (1981). The participants were oriented to the scale using age appropriate examples and were asked to use the scale to rate their self-efficacy. Students were asked 10 self-efficacy related questions. Scores were averaged and reported.
To assess the usage of strategies taught in the instructional conditions, notes and the written stories were examined to obtain direct evidence.
To obtain the writing samples, authors used black-and-white pictures for the writing stimuli during five different writing probes. These probes were given for pre-test and posttest; generalization probe given in the student’s classroom after the end of instruction; and two maintenance probes given at 2 and 4 weeks after instruction. These pictures were validated at a preplanned pilot study. The authors were diligent at establishing rigor with their instruments and put in place a number of procedures to ensure reliable and valid outcomes. This includes ensuring that there is no cumulative effect by rotating pictures at each writing probe.
Instruction was given in the three strategy instruction conditions by four preservice teachers with extensive field experience and who were majoring in education. The teachers were not informed of specific purpose of the study to hedge against predisposed affinity to a particular strategy. Instruction was given in the 4 small groups in each condition. Sessions were three instructional sessions per week for approximately 3 weeks. At pretest and posttest, self efficacy measure and writing probes were each administered on different days to avoid carryover effects. Maintenance probes were administered to students with LD who received the three strategy instruction conditions. Generalization probes were administered only to the students with LD in the strategy instruction conditions within 1 week of the end of the strategy instruction. The normally achieving students were administered only one writing probe and collected when the students with LD in strategy instruction completed their posttest.
Students in only the full SRSD condition received instruction and practice designed to facilitate goal setting and self-monitoring in addition to the other SRSD strategies. They also received full feedback. Students in the SRSD condition without explicit self-regulation instruction received all the strategies except for goal setting and self-monitoring. There were no conferences given to receive feedback from the instructor. In direct teaching students did not develop practice using self-instructions to help them regulate the use of strategies. There was no overt modeling and collaborative work among the students. There was no explicit instruction in goal setting and self-monitoring.
For the non-randomized control group, writing instruction was not provided. Participants were asked to write three stories independently and given no assistance in writing. Feedback was also withheld.
Results
Means and standard deviations on story grammar scale were reported for all four conditions, practice control and norm group. In all writing probe cases, the mean for the full SRSD condition increased compared to direct teaching method and SRSD without explicit goal setting and self-monitoring instruction. The posttest means for the full SRSD condition were also higher when compared to the normal achieving group and practice control group.
Means and standard deviations on the writing performance also show that full SRSD is an effective instructional strategy to improve and generalize writing skills. For all writing probes, means for the full SRSD condition increased when compared to the other conditions. The posttest means for the full SRSD condition were also higher when compared to the normal achieving group and practice control group.
Evidence of strategy use showed 55% of students with LD in the direct teaching condition, 64% in the SRSD condition without explicit self-regulation and 73% of the full SRSD showed overt evidence of using the strategy when writing stories. Self-efficacy pre and posttest showed no significant difference.
Discussion
The research investigated component analysis, writing performance, and self-efficacy. Students who received full SRSD and SRSD without explicit strategy instruction conditions received significantly higher schematic structure than did students in the practice-control condition. No augmentive effects were found on schematic structure for goal setting and self-monitoring. However, the results highlighted the use of self-statements, modeling and collaborative practice was beneficial to students with LD. Generalization and maintenance results showed that the full SRSD instruction benefited students with LD. The writing performance showed improvement with the full SRSD instruction. Scores among students with LD from all three instructional groups were not significantly different from the normally achieving students. In contrast, the normally achieving students did have significantly higher scores than students with LD in the practice-control condition. This result is important given the typical extreme differences in writing scores of students with LD and the normally achieving peers. This shows that SRSD instruction in writing is beneficial for students with LD. Finally, measures of self-efficacy showed no significant differences between pre and posttest measures.
Critique
A key strength of this study is the decomposition of strategy instruction to enable the identification of the specific variable that contributed to increased learning. Data were gathered to emphasize the effect of each particular component. In addition, the clever use data from the nonrandomized practice-control group and the normally-achieving group provided a nice comparison group to stress the benefits of self-regulated strategy instruction. The lack of a sensitive measurement tool to accurately assess self-efficacy of students with LD is a relative weakness of the study. The self-efficacy results merely confirmed what previous literature stated regarding the mismatch of self-efficacy and achievement by students with LD. The authors cited many opportunities for study in the area of self-efficacy. Unfortunately, the study was not able to add to the body of self-efficacy literature.
Implications
The major implication of this study is that explicit self-regulated strategy instruction with goal setting and self-monitoring is a viable strategy to improve story grammar and quality of writing among fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD. Results of this study showed that full SRSD instruction met all three components of effective strategy instruction: (1) targets strategies; (2) includes metastrategy information; and (3) develops self-regulation skills needed to use, monitor, maintain and generalize strategies effectively.
The study was designed to compare the results of four treatment conditions against results of the practice-control group and the normally achieving validation group. Additionally, data were gathered at five different points in time to assess generalizability and sustainability of skills. This design mapped out the impact of full SRSD instruction with writing. Future research could use this method when assessing the impact of full SRSD instruction in other academic content areas such as reading comprehension and math.
Practical implications of this study points to the viability of SRSD instruction in the classroom. Evidenced by improved measures in grammar and writing performance, self-regulated strategy instruction with goal setting and self-monitoring is cost effective in terms of time and materials. Students’ report on the use of strategies shows that the strategy is effective for sustaining desired writing outcomes. For these reasons, practitioners will be more apt to consider including these strategies in their teaching practice.
Chosen Study
This study is noteworthy because of its contribution to the field of self-regulated learning studies with students with learning disabilities (LD). The basis of this study is anchored on improving academic skills using cognitive strategy instruction. The study’s simple but straightforward methodology merits review by novice researchers. The statistical analysis was simple and easy to understand. This research is a good model to review when searching for examples of how to show the effectiveness of multicomponent strategy intervention models for students with LD.
Problem
Sawyer, Graham & Harris sought to address differential effects in the writing of students with LD in four experimental conditions: (1) full self-regulated strategy development (SRSD); (2) SRSD without explicit self-regulation, (3) direct teaching of strategy usage, and (4) nonrandomized practice-control. In this study, direct teaching was defined as teaching without (1) explicit self-regulation procedures, (2) the use of personalized self-instructions to guide the use of strategies, (3) modeling by teacher, and (4) collaborative practice with the teacher.
This study replicates and extends a previous study conducted by Graham and Harris (1989b). The results showed that both strategy instruction conditions resulted in meaningful and lasting effects on the schematic structure and quality of students’ compositions. Building from the Graham and Harris (1989b) study, the authors of this study sought to determine whether explicit self-regulation meaningfully augments strategy instruction when combined with instruction in the significance of the strategy.
The study design enabled the identification of the relative contributions of instructional components responsible for the change in learning. Separating the components allowed the authors to measure the differential effects of the instructional types at posttest, generalization and maintenance. New to this study was the addition of a practice control group. The authors also used a social validation condition of normally achieving students for comparison. The authors were able to see differential effects in schematic structure and quality and levels of self-efficacy in students with LD when compared to the control group and normally achieving students in varying conditions.
Methods
Three groups of students were selected for the study. Thirty-three fifth- and sixth grade students with LD were randomly assigned to the three strategy instructional conditions. Another 10 randomly selected fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD participated in a nonrandomized practice-control condition.
Students with LD were identified according to the following criteria: (a) identification as LD by their local school district, (b) IQ scores between 80 and 120 on a norm-referenced intelligence test, (c) achievement that was at least 2 years below grade level in one or more academic areas, (d) absence of other handicapping conditions, and (e) interviews with the resource teacher indicating significant composition problems were evident. Data reported a mean grade equivalent delay of approximately 2 years in both reading and writing. For sixth grade students, reading delay was 2.6 years with a writing delay of 2 years.
Graham and Harris used several instruments to measure the different effects of the study. A story grammar scale was used to measure sensitive effects of an instructional program. This scale was deemed valid in several separate investigations. The scale was shown to be highly correlated with other measures assessing the overall quality in students’ written work. To assess the quality of students’ stories, a holistic rating scale using a 7-point scale was created. Samples of high-, medium- and low-scoring compositions were used in grading the students’ writing sample. Two former elementary-school teachers who were unfamiliar with the study scored the writing samples. They were trained in using the holistic rating scale. The 2 scores were averaged and reported.
The authors used measures developed by Graham and Harris (1989b) for assessing students’ self-efficacy in writing. The instrument was designed in accordance with procedures outlined by Bandura and Schunk (1981). The participants were oriented to the scale using age appropriate examples and were asked to use the scale to rate their self-efficacy. Students were asked 10 self-efficacy related questions. Scores were averaged and reported.
To assess the usage of strategies taught in the instructional conditions, notes and the written stories were examined to obtain direct evidence.
To obtain the writing samples, authors used black-and-white pictures for the writing stimuli during five different writing probes. These probes were given for pre-test and posttest; generalization probe given in the student’s classroom after the end of instruction; and two maintenance probes given at 2 and 4 weeks after instruction. These pictures were validated at a preplanned pilot study. The authors were diligent at establishing rigor with their instruments and put in place a number of procedures to ensure reliable and valid outcomes. This includes ensuring that there is no cumulative effect by rotating pictures at each writing probe.
Instruction was given in the three strategy instruction conditions by four preservice teachers with extensive field experience and who were majoring in education. The teachers were not informed of specific purpose of the study to hedge against predisposed affinity to a particular strategy. Instruction was given in the 4 small groups in each condition. Sessions were three instructional sessions per week for approximately 3 weeks. At pretest and posttest, self efficacy measure and writing probes were each administered on different days to avoid carryover effects. Maintenance probes were administered to students with LD who received the three strategy instruction conditions. Generalization probes were administered only to the students with LD in the strategy instruction conditions within 1 week of the end of the strategy instruction. The normally achieving students were administered only one writing probe and collected when the students with LD in strategy instruction completed their posttest.
Students in only the full SRSD condition received instruction and practice designed to facilitate goal setting and self-monitoring in addition to the other SRSD strategies. They also received full feedback. Students in the SRSD condition without explicit self-regulation instruction received all the strategies except for goal setting and self-monitoring. There were no conferences given to receive feedback from the instructor. In direct teaching students did not develop practice using self-instructions to help them regulate the use of strategies. There was no overt modeling and collaborative work among the students. There was no explicit instruction in goal setting and self-monitoring.
For the non-randomized control group, writing instruction was not provided. Participants were asked to write three stories independently and given no assistance in writing. Feedback was also withheld.
Results
Means and standard deviations on story grammar scale were reported for all four conditions, practice control and norm group. In all writing probe cases, the mean for the full SRSD condition increased compared to direct teaching method and SRSD without explicit goal setting and self-monitoring instruction. The posttest means for the full SRSD condition were also higher when compared to the normal achieving group and practice control group.
Means and standard deviations on the writing performance also show that full SRSD is an effective instructional strategy to improve and generalize writing skills. For all writing probes, means for the full SRSD condition increased when compared to the other conditions. The posttest means for the full SRSD condition were also higher when compared to the normal achieving group and practice control group.
Evidence of strategy use showed 55% of students with LD in the direct teaching condition, 64% in the SRSD condition without explicit self-regulation and 73% of the full SRSD showed overt evidence of using the strategy when writing stories. Self-efficacy pre and posttest showed no significant difference.
Discussion
The research investigated component analysis, writing performance, and self-efficacy. Students who received full SRSD and SRSD without explicit strategy instruction conditions received significantly higher schematic structure than did students in the practice-control condition. No augmentive effects were found on schematic structure for goal setting and self-monitoring. However, the results highlighted the use of self-statements, modeling and collaborative practice was beneficial to students with LD. Generalization and maintenance results showed that the full SRSD instruction benefited students with LD. The writing performance showed improvement with the full SRSD instruction. Scores among students with LD from all three instructional groups were not significantly different from the normally achieving students. In contrast, the normally achieving students did have significantly higher scores than students with LD in the practice-control condition. This result is important given the typical extreme differences in writing scores of students with LD and the normally achieving peers. This shows that SRSD instruction in writing is beneficial for students with LD. Finally, measures of self-efficacy showed no significant differences between pre and posttest measures.
Critique
A key strength of this study is the decomposition of strategy instruction to enable the identification of the specific variable that contributed to increased learning. Data were gathered to emphasize the effect of each particular component. In addition, the clever use data from the nonrandomized practice-control group and the normally-achieving group provided a nice comparison group to stress the benefits of self-regulated strategy instruction. The lack of a sensitive measurement tool to accurately assess self-efficacy of students with LD is a relative weakness of the study. The self-efficacy results merely confirmed what previous literature stated regarding the mismatch of self-efficacy and achievement by students with LD. The authors cited many opportunities for study in the area of self-efficacy. Unfortunately, the study was not able to add to the body of self-efficacy literature.
Implications
The major implication of this study is that explicit self-regulated strategy instruction with goal setting and self-monitoring is a viable strategy to improve story grammar and quality of writing among fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD. Results of this study showed that full SRSD instruction met all three components of effective strategy instruction: (1) targets strategies; (2) includes metastrategy information; and (3) develops self-regulation skills needed to use, monitor, maintain and generalize strategies effectively.
The study was designed to compare the results of four treatment conditions against results of the practice-control group and the normally achieving validation group. Additionally, data were gathered at five different points in time to assess generalizability and sustainability of skills. This design mapped out the impact of full SRSD instruction with writing. Future research could use this method when assessing the impact of full SRSD instruction in other academic content areas such as reading comprehension and math.
Practical implications of this study points to the viability of SRSD instruction in the classroom. Evidenced by improved measures in grammar and writing performance, self-regulated strategy instruction with goal setting and self-monitoring is cost effective in terms of time and materials. Students’ report on the use of strategies shows that the strategy is effective for sustaining desired writing outcomes. For these reasons, practitioners will be more apt to consider including these strategies in their teaching practice.
Fuchs et al. (2003)
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 305-315.
Chosen Study
This study presents a structured research design that isolated the effects of self-regulated learning strategies among 3rd-grade students with varying abilities. This study is of interest because of its contribution to literature about a viable strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Problem
Prior research have explored the integration of self-regulated learning strategies with mathematics. However, these studies focused mainly on discrete computational skills with limited generalizability to problem solving. Current mathematics education reform has prompted schools to de-emphasize computations and focus more on problem solving skills that will enable students to apply and generalize these skills to novel situations. Performance assessments are now used to gauge student progress in these areas. Practitioners are in need of effective learning strategies to help students learn problem-solving skills.
For successful mathematics problem-solving to take place, students are required to apply knowledge, skills, and strategies to novel problems. Mathematical problem-solving requires metacognition, the ability to regulate decision-making processes related to various forms of knowledge. One way to cultivate problem solving skills is to help students learn how to regulate their own learning. Because metacognition is an important process for self-regulation, one approach for strengthening the metacognitive component of problem-solving is to incorporate the SRL strategies of goal setting and self-monitoring. Use of these strategies is associated with students’ self-efficacy, motivation, and academic achievement. Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlet, Owen et al. investigated the contribution of SRL strategies on the mathematical problem solving abilities of students with varying achievement histories.
Method
Fuchs et al used an experimental design to separate the effects of SRL, including goal setting and self-evaluation. In this way, the authors were able to examine the contribution of SRL when combined with problem-solving transfer instruction with students who are high-, average-, low-achieving (HA, AA, and LA respectively) including students with learning disabilities (LD).
The study had three conditions: control (teacher-designed), transfer (Fuchs et al’s 2003, solution plus transfer instructional methodology), transfer plus SRL. 24 third-grade teachers were randomly assigned to these conditions. For the control condition, teachers used the district’s basal math curriculum. The transfer treatment comprised teaching rules for problem solution, teaching for transfer, and cumulative review. In the transfer-plus-SRL treatment, SRL components were incorporated. All teaching sessions were scripted to ensure consistency of information. The authors taped the lessons to ensure fidelity to the implementation.
Three transfer measures (immediate, near, and far transfer) and student questionnaire of self-regulation processes were used. These transfer measures each had two alternate forms. The immediate transfer was scored as product scores and near transfer measures were scored as process scores (showing the methods used in their work). Far transfer measures assessed students’ transfer of all problem structures taught in the solution treatment and the essential skills from the district curriculum. A performance rubric was used to assess conceptual underpinnings, computational applications, problem-solving strategies, and communicative value. Pre and posttreatment from the transfer measures were collected.
The authors used student questionnaire tapping self-efficacy goal orientation, self-monitoring and effort. The data were collected by research assistants. Each transfer measure and each item on the student questionnaire were analyzed using a two-factor mixed model analysis of variance. Change scores between pre and posttreatment measures were reported. Data collected from student with LD were analyzed using one-way ANOVA on each measure.
Results
Student improvement varied depending on the treatment condition. The immediate transfer condition showed a significant improvement. The control groups’ improvement was less than that of the transfer group, which in turn was inferior to the transfer-plus-SRL group. For the near transfer group, the HA control groups’ improvement was less than that of the HA transfer group. Far transfer condition main effect was also significant. The transfer-plus-SRL group outperformed the control group; the improvement of the transfer group was comparable with control and transfer plus SRL. Students with LD’s improvement scores can be seen across all groups. Data analyses showed significant effects for the student questionnaires on self-regulations processes, specifically on the question concerning knowledge about transferring skills.
Discussion
On immediate and near-transfer measures students in the problem-solving transfer treatment outgrew those in the control group. Effect sizes were large (1.91 and 1.98 for HA, 1.22 and 1.78 for AA, and 1.24 and 1.38 for LA). On the far-transfer measure effects did not reliably favor the problem solving transfer treatment over the control group. The problem-solving transfer treatment must be enhanced to induce change. A combination of SRL and problem-solving transfer instruction was successful in effecting the desired outcome.
Data showed mixed results when comparing the improvement of students who received the problem-solving transfer treatment combined with SRL with those who received the problem-solving transfer treatment alone. On immediate transfer the SRL contribution was evident. On near transfer the contribution was significant. However for AA and LA, the growth was significant. On far transfer measure the results were unreliable and small for all three achievement groups.
Critique
The study’s complex design allowed the analyses for specific conditions and specific participant groups. This structure provided valuable effect size information that is useful for decisions on educational and curricular policies and future research.
Implications
This study added to previous research confirming that SRL is an effective strategy for teaching behaviors associated with SRL processes and that in turn promotes learning. More studies are needed to establish far transfer effects of SRL strategy instruction for math problem solving.
The instruments used in this study, like the transfer measurements, could be used in future research in the area of SRL instruction. The author designed questionnaire of self-regulations processes is another validated tool available for future studies.
Several practical implications emerged from this study. First, by delivering an acceptable level of effect sizes the authors were able to establish that self-regulation instruction is an appropriate strategy that will increase outcomes for mathematical problem solving. Second, the authors contributed effect size information to SRL literature. Third, the external validity of the authors’ previous work was extended to whole class instruction. Fourth, by grouping learners according to ability, as well as those diagnosed with disabilities, the authors provided acceptable effect sizes for the range of learners found in regular classrooms. Data on the different types of learners, including students with disabilities provide future researchers a wealth of information from which to base extensions of studies.
Chosen Study
This study presents a structured research design that isolated the effects of self-regulated learning strategies among 3rd-grade students with varying abilities. This study is of interest because of its contribution to literature about a viable strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Problem
Prior research have explored the integration of self-regulated learning strategies with mathematics. However, these studies focused mainly on discrete computational skills with limited generalizability to problem solving. Current mathematics education reform has prompted schools to de-emphasize computations and focus more on problem solving skills that will enable students to apply and generalize these skills to novel situations. Performance assessments are now used to gauge student progress in these areas. Practitioners are in need of effective learning strategies to help students learn problem-solving skills.
For successful mathematics problem-solving to take place, students are required to apply knowledge, skills, and strategies to novel problems. Mathematical problem-solving requires metacognition, the ability to regulate decision-making processes related to various forms of knowledge. One way to cultivate problem solving skills is to help students learn how to regulate their own learning. Because metacognition is an important process for self-regulation, one approach for strengthening the metacognitive component of problem-solving is to incorporate the SRL strategies of goal setting and self-monitoring. Use of these strategies is associated with students’ self-efficacy, motivation, and academic achievement. Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlet, Owen et al. investigated the contribution of SRL strategies on the mathematical problem solving abilities of students with varying achievement histories.
Method
Fuchs et al used an experimental design to separate the effects of SRL, including goal setting and self-evaluation. In this way, the authors were able to examine the contribution of SRL when combined with problem-solving transfer instruction with students who are high-, average-, low-achieving (HA, AA, and LA respectively) including students with learning disabilities (LD).
The study had three conditions: control (teacher-designed), transfer (Fuchs et al’s 2003, solution plus transfer instructional methodology), transfer plus SRL. 24 third-grade teachers were randomly assigned to these conditions. For the control condition, teachers used the district’s basal math curriculum. The transfer treatment comprised teaching rules for problem solution, teaching for transfer, and cumulative review. In the transfer-plus-SRL treatment, SRL components were incorporated. All teaching sessions were scripted to ensure consistency of information. The authors taped the lessons to ensure fidelity to the implementation.
Three transfer measures (immediate, near, and far transfer) and student questionnaire of self-regulation processes were used. These transfer measures each had two alternate forms. The immediate transfer was scored as product scores and near transfer measures were scored as process scores (showing the methods used in their work). Far transfer measures assessed students’ transfer of all problem structures taught in the solution treatment and the essential skills from the district curriculum. A performance rubric was used to assess conceptual underpinnings, computational applications, problem-solving strategies, and communicative value. Pre and posttreatment from the transfer measures were collected.
The authors used student questionnaire tapping self-efficacy goal orientation, self-monitoring and effort. The data were collected by research assistants. Each transfer measure and each item on the student questionnaire were analyzed using a two-factor mixed model analysis of variance. Change scores between pre and posttreatment measures were reported. Data collected from student with LD were analyzed using one-way ANOVA on each measure.
Results
Student improvement varied depending on the treatment condition. The immediate transfer condition showed a significant improvement. The control groups’ improvement was less than that of the transfer group, which in turn was inferior to the transfer-plus-SRL group. For the near transfer group, the HA control groups’ improvement was less than that of the HA transfer group. Far transfer condition main effect was also significant. The transfer-plus-SRL group outperformed the control group; the improvement of the transfer group was comparable with control and transfer plus SRL. Students with LD’s improvement scores can be seen across all groups. Data analyses showed significant effects for the student questionnaires on self-regulations processes, specifically on the question concerning knowledge about transferring skills.
Discussion
On immediate and near-transfer measures students in the problem-solving transfer treatment outgrew those in the control group. Effect sizes were large (1.91 and 1.98 for HA, 1.22 and 1.78 for AA, and 1.24 and 1.38 for LA). On the far-transfer measure effects did not reliably favor the problem solving transfer treatment over the control group. The problem-solving transfer treatment must be enhanced to induce change. A combination of SRL and problem-solving transfer instruction was successful in effecting the desired outcome.
Data showed mixed results when comparing the improvement of students who received the problem-solving transfer treatment combined with SRL with those who received the problem-solving transfer treatment alone. On immediate transfer the SRL contribution was evident. On near transfer the contribution was significant. However for AA and LA, the growth was significant. On far transfer measure the results were unreliable and small for all three achievement groups.
Critique
The study’s complex design allowed the analyses for specific conditions and specific participant groups. This structure provided valuable effect size information that is useful for decisions on educational and curricular policies and future research.
Implications
This study added to previous research confirming that SRL is an effective strategy for teaching behaviors associated with SRL processes and that in turn promotes learning. More studies are needed to establish far transfer effects of SRL strategy instruction for math problem solving.
The instruments used in this study, like the transfer measurements, could be used in future research in the area of SRL instruction. The author designed questionnaire of self-regulations processes is another validated tool available for future studies.
Several practical implications emerged from this study. First, by delivering an acceptable level of effect sizes the authors were able to establish that self-regulation instruction is an appropriate strategy that will increase outcomes for mathematical problem solving. Second, the authors contributed effect size information to SRL literature. Third, the external validity of the authors’ previous work was extended to whole class instruction. Fourth, by grouping learners according to ability, as well as those diagnosed with disabilities, the authors provided acceptable effect sizes for the range of learners found in regular classrooms. Data on the different types of learners, including students with disabilities provide future researchers a wealth of information from which to base extensions of studies.
Glaser & Brunstien (2007)
Glaser C. & Brunstein J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students' composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures.Journal of Educational Psychology,99,p.297-310.
Literature Review
This article was chosen for review because it integrated improving composition skills with strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. The article, written by Glaser & Brunstein (2007), extends the work of Graham & Harris (2003). The reason I chose this article is that it was set in Germany and demonstrates both the international interest in this topic and power of the strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures for improving complex cognitive tasks such as writing.
Problem
Many students struggle with writing. When we look at writing scores in state standards tests writing is often an area of weakness for many students. The hypothesis for this study is that strategy instruction combined with self –regulation procedures would (a) improve the effectiveness of writing strategies training (b) increase the maintenance of learned strategies across time; and (c) facilitate the generalization, or transfer, of the learned strategies across time. (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007 p. 298-299).
Methods
One hundred thirteen (113) fourth graders attending six classes in three elementary schools from middle-class neighborhoods in Germany were the participants in the study. The six classes were randomly assigned to three conditions. The students from two intact classes were assigned to each of the conditions: strategy plus self-regulation, (22 girls and 19 boys), strategy only (19 girls and 15 boys), and control conditions (15 girls and 23 boys).
The study involved a quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test, follow-up design. Writing instruction in 45 minute lessons was delivered in four weekly sessions. The mixed-ability experimental groups were taught by university graduate assistants while the control groups were taught by their regular teachers. Pre- and post-test materials were administered 1 week before and 3 days after the intervention. Maintenance probes were administered 5 weeks after the post-testing. The study controlled for maintenance by the all teachers agreeing to not assign story composition tasks for their students between post-test and probe.
Strategy instruction based on SRSD studies, (Harris & Graham, 1999; Harris & Pressley, 1991) were the techniques used in the strategy only and strategy and self-regulation groups. The techniques were: activation of background knowledge; direct instruction and group discussions of strategies; cognitive modeling of each step; reciting mnemonics to retrieve each step from memory; guided, collaborative and independent practice in drafting and rewriting stories; progress feedback on quality; and verbal scaffolding of instructional support.
The self-regulation procedures were explicitly taught and followed by guided and independent practice. The four procedures were (a) self-monitoring of strategic planning, (b) self-assessment of writing performance, (c) self-monitoring of revision activities, and (d) criterion setting and procedural goals.
Results
One hundred and thirteen students were available for statistical analysis. Both experimental groups out-performed the control group on the post-test. But only the strategy and self-regulation group maintained their learning at the maintenance probe 5 weeks after the intervention. At the end of the 5 week period the strategy only group relapsed to their pre-test levels in writing skills. The control group did not make significant gains in writing skill.
Discussion
Since both strategy and strategy and self-regulation groups out-performed the control it appears likely that the strategy only group could be used as a comparison as to the effectiveness of the combination intervention. Taken with the results that the students who received the didactic lessons showed limited improvement over the course of the study, it appears that extended practice on writing alone was not enough to make the difference.
Critique
The strength in this study is that it was able to isolate self-regulation learning from strategy instruction alone. The study was able to isolate the importance of self-reflective practices for the success of SRSD. The researchers were also able because of the three interventions to identify that self-regulation needs to be taught, that it does not automatically evolve when task specific strategies are taught.
The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the researchers. They were unable to identify if certain self-regulation strategies would be most effective with which part of the writing process. They also identified the lack of assessment of motivation variables between students within the 3 groups. One difference between the strategy and strategy and self-regulatory training group and the control group was that the control group was taught in their regular classes while the 2 other groups were taught in small mixed ability groups. This leads the authors to suggest that more work needs to be done to refine the instruction from small group to class size groups.
Theoretical Conclusions
The results from this study will provide further theoretical development and practical applications. This study presented a qualitative difference between strategy instruction alone and strategy instruction with self-regulation procedures. The power of the difference was in the maintenance of the learning within the writing process.
Methodological Conclusions
The authors of this study distinguished between strategy instruction alone and strategy and self-regulation procedures. Previous research had not made that discrimination. This then allows future researchers to test the generalizability of these results. It also opens the door to look at the effect of strategy and self-regulation instruction on different writing genre.
Practical Conclusions
Implementation of the self-regulation strategies will need to be attempted with larger groups of students and with different age groups. The research was conducted over a short interval and would benefit from a more extended time frame.
Reference
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007) Improving Fourth-Grade Students’ Composition Skills: Effects of Strategy Instruction and Self-Regulation Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297-310
Literature Review
This article was chosen for review because it integrated improving composition skills with strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. The article, written by Glaser & Brunstein (2007), extends the work of Graham & Harris (2003). The reason I chose this article is that it was set in Germany and demonstrates both the international interest in this topic and power of the strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures for improving complex cognitive tasks such as writing.
Problem
Many students struggle with writing. When we look at writing scores in state standards tests writing is often an area of weakness for many students. The hypothesis for this study is that strategy instruction combined with self –regulation procedures would (a) improve the effectiveness of writing strategies training (b) increase the maintenance of learned strategies across time; and (c) facilitate the generalization, or transfer, of the learned strategies across time. (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007 p. 298-299).
Methods
One hundred thirteen (113) fourth graders attending six classes in three elementary schools from middle-class neighborhoods in Germany were the participants in the study. The six classes were randomly assigned to three conditions. The students from two intact classes were assigned to each of the conditions: strategy plus self-regulation, (22 girls and 19 boys), strategy only (19 girls and 15 boys), and control conditions (15 girls and 23 boys).
The study involved a quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test, follow-up design. Writing instruction in 45 minute lessons was delivered in four weekly sessions. The mixed-ability experimental groups were taught by university graduate assistants while the control groups were taught by their regular teachers. Pre- and post-test materials were administered 1 week before and 3 days after the intervention. Maintenance probes were administered 5 weeks after the post-testing. The study controlled for maintenance by the all teachers agreeing to not assign story composition tasks for their students between post-test and probe.
Strategy instruction based on SRSD studies, (Harris & Graham, 1999; Harris & Pressley, 1991) were the techniques used in the strategy only and strategy and self-regulation groups. The techniques were: activation of background knowledge; direct instruction and group discussions of strategies; cognitive modeling of each step; reciting mnemonics to retrieve each step from memory; guided, collaborative and independent practice in drafting and rewriting stories; progress feedback on quality; and verbal scaffolding of instructional support.
The self-regulation procedures were explicitly taught and followed by guided and independent practice. The four procedures were (a) self-monitoring of strategic planning, (b) self-assessment of writing performance, (c) self-monitoring of revision activities, and (d) criterion setting and procedural goals.
Results
One hundred and thirteen students were available for statistical analysis. Both experimental groups out-performed the control group on the post-test. But only the strategy and self-regulation group maintained their learning at the maintenance probe 5 weeks after the intervention. At the end of the 5 week period the strategy only group relapsed to their pre-test levels in writing skills. The control group did not make significant gains in writing skill.
Discussion
Since both strategy and strategy and self-regulation groups out-performed the control it appears likely that the strategy only group could be used as a comparison as to the effectiveness of the combination intervention. Taken with the results that the students who received the didactic lessons showed limited improvement over the course of the study, it appears that extended practice on writing alone was not enough to make the difference.
Critique
The strength in this study is that it was able to isolate self-regulation learning from strategy instruction alone. The study was able to isolate the importance of self-reflective practices for the success of SRSD. The researchers were also able because of the three interventions to identify that self-regulation needs to be taught, that it does not automatically evolve when task specific strategies are taught.
The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the researchers. They were unable to identify if certain self-regulation strategies would be most effective with which part of the writing process. They also identified the lack of assessment of motivation variables between students within the 3 groups. One difference between the strategy and strategy and self-regulatory training group and the control group was that the control group was taught in their regular classes while the 2 other groups were taught in small mixed ability groups. This leads the authors to suggest that more work needs to be done to refine the instruction from small group to class size groups.
Theoretical Conclusions
The results from this study will provide further theoretical development and practical applications. This study presented a qualitative difference between strategy instruction alone and strategy instruction with self-regulation procedures. The power of the difference was in the maintenance of the learning within the writing process.
Methodological Conclusions
The authors of this study distinguished between strategy instruction alone and strategy and self-regulation procedures. Previous research had not made that discrimination. This then allows future researchers to test the generalizability of these results. It also opens the door to look at the effect of strategy and self-regulation instruction on different writing genre.
Practical Conclusions
Implementation of the self-regulation strategies will need to be attempted with larger groups of students and with different age groups. The research was conducted over a short interval and would benefit from a more extended time frame.
Reference
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007) Improving Fourth-Grade Students’ Composition Skills: Effects of Strategy Instruction and Self-Regulation Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297-310
Greene et al. (2008)
Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., Azevedo, R., Winters, F. I. (2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers & Education, 50, 1069-1083.
Introduction
Greene, Moos, Azevedo, and Winters are prolific researchers of students’ use of self-regulated learning (SRL) processes in hypermedia environments. Some of their other studies have explored scaffolding of SRL strategies, contributions of SRL to shifts in mental models, and relationships between goal structures and SRL strategy use. This study utilized the same materials (pre and posttests, software hypermedia environment, and think-aloud coding) as the authors’ previous studies, but explored the differences in SRL strategy use between grade-level and gifted students. Hypermedia environments are germane to the investigation of SRL strategy use because the environments encourage free exploration, placing great responsibility on the student for pursuing learning goals.
Previous research into the SRL characteristics of gifted learners revealed greater understanding of metacognitive principles in gifted learners, but survey data reported no difference in deployment of SRL strategies between gifted and grade-level learners. Greene, et al. believed the survey results were misleading because they represented a self-report of the beliefs of the participants about their own SRL strategy use, rather than an objective measure of strategy deployment gathered during the learning process. This study (Greene, et al., 2008) used coded think-aloud data to measure the frequency of SRL strategy use. The authors, refuting the results of the survey research, hypothesized that gifted students use key self-regulatory strategies more than the grade-level students.
The design and hypotheses of this study aligned with Pintrich’s theory of Self Regulated Learning, which followed four areas of SRL (cognition, motivation, context, and behavior), through a four-phase cycle of learning: planning, monitoring, controlling, and reflecting. One assumption of Pintrich’s SRL model stated that all learners had the potential to regulate their learning, but research has shown that all learners do not always effectively regulate their learning. Since SRL strategy use is associated with greater learning gains, the authors believed that some of the differences between the performances of gifted and grade level students could be explained by differences in the application of SRL strategy.
Methods
Participants were ninety-eight 7th graders with average or little knowledge of the circulatory system. Half of the students attended a gifted program for highly able middle school students. A commercial software application served as the hypermedia learning environment. Identical pre and posttests were administered in paper and pencil format. Participants were tested individually and asked to think aloud continuously while they learned.
Assessments of Pre- and post-test mental models, collected in essay form, assigned a score of low, intermediate, or high for the purpose of analysis. Scores for matching and labeling tasks and blood flow diagrams reported percentage of correct answers. The 65 hours of audio and video recorded think-alouds were transcribed and coded based on the same process developed by Azevedo and colleagues for previous SRL studies. Agreement between the two raters was established at .96 for mental model scoring and .98 for verbal protocols. Inconsistencies were resolved through discussion.
Results
The authors utilized ordinal regression to ascertain the impact of gifted classification and pretest score on students’ posttest scores on the mental model essay, using the high mental model posttest group as the reference. Both pretest score and gifted classification were significant predictors in the resulting model. A low pretest mental model score reduced the odds of a high posttest score by 96% (eb = .04), while participants in the gifted classification saw the odds of a high posttest score increase by 794% (eb = 7.94).
On measures of declarative knowledge, the students in the gifted classification performed better on posttests, after adjusting for pretest scores. 2 × 2 (classification vs. time, mixed design) repeated measures ANOVAs showed a significant interaction between group and time for matching task (F[1,96] = 46.92, MSE = 250.66, p = .001, η2 = .33), labeling task (F[1,96] = 23.41, MSE = 217.02, p = .023, η2 = .20), and flow diagram (F[1,96] = 10.97, MSE = 3.28, p = .001, η2 = .10).
Chi-square analyses of SRL strategy use found significant differences between participant classification groups for only five of the 33 SRL variables. Participants in the gifted classification used summarization, selecting new informational sources, and coordinating informational sources significantly more than the participants in the grade-level classification, who used finding location in environment and taking notes significantly more (α = .05).
Discussion
The results confirmed all hypotheses: gifted students outperformed grade-level students on all learning measures and differences between groups emerged in use of SRL processes. The authors believed that differences in performance may be partly attributable to the differences in SRL strategy deployment. They proposed that grade-level students who learn to use higher level SRL strategies might improve performance.
The correlational design of this study could not establish a causal relationship between performance and SRL strategy use, which limited the applicability of the findings. Limitations also included participant age, prior knowledge classification, and the characteristics of the chosen hypermedia environment, which was designed for reference use, rather than as a teaching tool for meeting specific learning goals.
The authors recommend the application of their findings to the scaffolding of hypermedia environments. They suggest embedding SRL prompts and feedback in hypermedia in order to encourage students’ use of effective strategies and discourage use of ineffective strategies. They envision a hypermedia environment that utilizes artificial intelligence technology to follow and coach students’ self-regulatory practices while they learn.
Critique
This study filled an important gap in the prior research by exploring differences between gifted and grad-level students’ use of SRL strategies. The article was clearly written, well-organized, and conveyed adequate content and context. The methods developed by the authors for measuring SRL strategy use are the centerpieces of their research, and show marked improvement over previous studies of similar topics.
The coding of think-aloud protocols developed by the authors over the course of several studies, takes a step towards objective measurement of SRL strategy deployment from the previous survey methods, but is still susceptible to erroneous report. Specifically, participants’ cognition may be influenced by the requirement to think aloud and their very awareness of their thought-stream could cause them to change behaviors and depart from their usual learning processes. This would not signal a weakness in the measurement of the participant’s use of SRL processes in the research setting, but would limit the relevance of the research results to classroom contexts where think-aloud is not encouraged.
Is it plausible that the difference in learning product between summarizing and note taking is great enough to influence test scores at all? Because previous research has shown that gifted students possess more knowledge of SRL strategies, it is very likely that these students also apply the strategies differently. Measuring the frequency of strategy deployment does not evaluate the quality of strategy application. Perhaps future research could explore depth of practice in the application of SRL strategies.
Conclusions
Greene et al. confirmed some of their suspicions about gifted students’ use of key SRL strategies, but did not see the differences they expected in the areas of planning, monitoring, managing task difficulty and demands, or interest. If this finding is confirmed in other research, it might influence the theoretical concepts of the SRL cycle by placing more importance on certain key phases and processes. Practical applications of these findings might include direct instruction for implementing key SRL strategies during the learning process.
Introduction
Greene, Moos, Azevedo, and Winters are prolific researchers of students’ use of self-regulated learning (SRL) processes in hypermedia environments. Some of their other studies have explored scaffolding of SRL strategies, contributions of SRL to shifts in mental models, and relationships between goal structures and SRL strategy use. This study utilized the same materials (pre and posttests, software hypermedia environment, and think-aloud coding) as the authors’ previous studies, but explored the differences in SRL strategy use between grade-level and gifted students. Hypermedia environments are germane to the investigation of SRL strategy use because the environments encourage free exploration, placing great responsibility on the student for pursuing learning goals.
Previous research into the SRL characteristics of gifted learners revealed greater understanding of metacognitive principles in gifted learners, but survey data reported no difference in deployment of SRL strategies between gifted and grade-level learners. Greene, et al. believed the survey results were misleading because they represented a self-report of the beliefs of the participants about their own SRL strategy use, rather than an objective measure of strategy deployment gathered during the learning process. This study (Greene, et al., 2008) used coded think-aloud data to measure the frequency of SRL strategy use. The authors, refuting the results of the survey research, hypothesized that gifted students use key self-regulatory strategies more than the grade-level students.
The design and hypotheses of this study aligned with Pintrich’s theory of Self Regulated Learning, which followed four areas of SRL (cognition, motivation, context, and behavior), through a four-phase cycle of learning: planning, monitoring, controlling, and reflecting. One assumption of Pintrich’s SRL model stated that all learners had the potential to regulate their learning, but research has shown that all learners do not always effectively regulate their learning. Since SRL strategy use is associated with greater learning gains, the authors believed that some of the differences between the performances of gifted and grade level students could be explained by differences in the application of SRL strategy.
Methods
Participants were ninety-eight 7th graders with average or little knowledge of the circulatory system. Half of the students attended a gifted program for highly able middle school students. A commercial software application served as the hypermedia learning environment. Identical pre and posttests were administered in paper and pencil format. Participants were tested individually and asked to think aloud continuously while they learned.
Assessments of Pre- and post-test mental models, collected in essay form, assigned a score of low, intermediate, or high for the purpose of analysis. Scores for matching and labeling tasks and blood flow diagrams reported percentage of correct answers. The 65 hours of audio and video recorded think-alouds were transcribed and coded based on the same process developed by Azevedo and colleagues for previous SRL studies. Agreement between the two raters was established at .96 for mental model scoring and .98 for verbal protocols. Inconsistencies were resolved through discussion.
Results
The authors utilized ordinal regression to ascertain the impact of gifted classification and pretest score on students’ posttest scores on the mental model essay, using the high mental model posttest group as the reference. Both pretest score and gifted classification were significant predictors in the resulting model. A low pretest mental model score reduced the odds of a high posttest score by 96% (eb = .04), while participants in the gifted classification saw the odds of a high posttest score increase by 794% (eb = 7.94).
On measures of declarative knowledge, the students in the gifted classification performed better on posttests, after adjusting for pretest scores. 2 × 2 (classification vs. time, mixed design) repeated measures ANOVAs showed a significant interaction between group and time for matching task (F[1,96] = 46.92, MSE = 250.66, p = .001, η2 = .33), labeling task (F[1,96] = 23.41, MSE = 217.02, p = .023, η2 = .20), and flow diagram (F[1,96] = 10.97, MSE = 3.28, p = .001, η2 = .10).
Chi-square analyses of SRL strategy use found significant differences between participant classification groups for only five of the 33 SRL variables. Participants in the gifted classification used summarization, selecting new informational sources, and coordinating informational sources significantly more than the participants in the grade-level classification, who used finding location in environment and taking notes significantly more (α = .05).
Discussion
The results confirmed all hypotheses: gifted students outperformed grade-level students on all learning measures and differences between groups emerged in use of SRL processes. The authors believed that differences in performance may be partly attributable to the differences in SRL strategy deployment. They proposed that grade-level students who learn to use higher level SRL strategies might improve performance.
The correlational design of this study could not establish a causal relationship between performance and SRL strategy use, which limited the applicability of the findings. Limitations also included participant age, prior knowledge classification, and the characteristics of the chosen hypermedia environment, which was designed for reference use, rather than as a teaching tool for meeting specific learning goals.
The authors recommend the application of their findings to the scaffolding of hypermedia environments. They suggest embedding SRL prompts and feedback in hypermedia in order to encourage students’ use of effective strategies and discourage use of ineffective strategies. They envision a hypermedia environment that utilizes artificial intelligence technology to follow and coach students’ self-regulatory practices while they learn.
Critique
This study filled an important gap in the prior research by exploring differences between gifted and grad-level students’ use of SRL strategies. The article was clearly written, well-organized, and conveyed adequate content and context. The methods developed by the authors for measuring SRL strategy use are the centerpieces of their research, and show marked improvement over previous studies of similar topics.
The coding of think-aloud protocols developed by the authors over the course of several studies, takes a step towards objective measurement of SRL strategy deployment from the previous survey methods, but is still susceptible to erroneous report. Specifically, participants’ cognition may be influenced by the requirement to think aloud and their very awareness of their thought-stream could cause them to change behaviors and depart from their usual learning processes. This would not signal a weakness in the measurement of the participant’s use of SRL processes in the research setting, but would limit the relevance of the research results to classroom contexts where think-aloud is not encouraged.
Is it plausible that the difference in learning product between summarizing and note taking is great enough to influence test scores at all? Because previous research has shown that gifted students possess more knowledge of SRL strategies, it is very likely that these students also apply the strategies differently. Measuring the frequency of strategy deployment does not evaluate the quality of strategy application. Perhaps future research could explore depth of practice in the application of SRL strategies.
Conclusions
Greene et al. confirmed some of their suspicions about gifted students’ use of key SRL strategies, but did not see the differences they expected in the areas of planning, monitoring, managing task difficulty and demands, or interest. If this finding is confirmed in other research, it might influence the theoretical concepts of the SRL cycle by placing more importance on certain key phases and processes. Practical applications of these findings might include direct instruction for implementing key SRL strategies during the learning process.
Mason (2004)
Mason, L. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategey develoment versus reciprocal qestioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 96, 283-296.
Literature Review
This article was chosen for review because it integrated improving composition skills with strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. The article, written by Glaser & Brunstein (2007), extends the work of Graham & Harris (2003). The reason I chose this article is that it was set in Germany and demonstrates both the international interest in this topic and power of the strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures for improving complex cognitive tasks such as writing.
Problem
Many students struggle with writing. When we look at writing scores in state standards tests writing is often an area of weakness for many students. The hypothesis for this study is that strategy instruction combined with self –regulation procedures would (a) improve the effectiveness of writing strategies training (b) increase the maintenance of learned strategies across time; and (c) facilitate the generalization, or transfer, of the learned strategies across time. (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007 p. 298-299).
Methods
One hundred thirteen (113) fourth graders attending six classes in three elementary schools from middle-class neighborhoods in Germany were the participants in the study. The six classes were randomly assigned to three conditions. The students from two intact classes were assigned to each of the conditions: strategy plus self-regulation, (22 girls and 19 boys), strategy only (19 girls and 15 boys), and control conditions (15 girls and 23 boys).
The study involved a quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test, follow-up design. Writing instruction in 45 minute lessons was delivered in four weekly sessions. The mixed-ability experimental groups were taught by university graduate assistants while the control groups were taught by their regular teachers. Pre- and post-test materials were administered 1 week before and 3 days after the intervention. Maintenance probes were administered 5 weeks after the post-testing. The study controlled for maintenance by the all teachers agreeing to not assign story composition tasks for their students between post-test and probe.
Strategy instruction based on SRSD studies, (Harris & Graham, 1999; Harris & Pressley, 1991) were the techniques used in the strategy only and strategy and self-regulation groups. The techniques were: activation of background knowledge; direct instruction and group discussions of strategies; cognitive modeling of each step; reciting mnemonics to retrieve each step from memory; guided, collaborative and independent practice in drafting and rewriting stories; progress feedback on quality; and verbal scaffolding of instructional support.
The self-regulation procedures were explicitly taught and followed by guided and independent practice. The four procedures were (a) self-monitoring of strategic planning, (b) self-assessment of writing performance, (c) self-monitoring of revision activities, and (d) criterion setting and procedural goals.
Results
One hundred and thirteen students were available for statistical analysis. Both experimental groups out-performed the control group on the post-test. But only the strategy and self-regulation group maintained their learning at the maintenance probe 5 weeks after the intervention. At the end of the 5 week period the strategy only group relapsed to their pre-test levels in writing skills. The control group did not make significant gains in writing skill.
Discussion
Since both strategy and strategy and self-regulation groups out-performed the control it appears likely that the strategy only group could be used as a comparison as to the effectiveness of the combination intervention. Taken with the results that the students who received the didactic lessons showed limited improvement over the course of the study, it appears that extended practice on writing alone was not enough to make the difference.
Critique
The strength in this study is that it was able to isolate self-regulation learning from strategy instruction alone. The study was able to isolate the importance of self-reflective practices for the success of SRSD. The researchers were also able because of the three interventions to identify that self-regulation needs to be taught, that it does not automatically evolve when task specific strategies are taught.
The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the researchers. They were unable to identify if certain self-regulation strategies would be most effective with which part of the writing process. They also identified the lack of assessment of motivation variables between students within the 3 groups. One difference between the strategy and strategy and self-regulatory training group and the control group was that the control group was taught in their regular classes while the 2 other groups were taught in small mixed ability groups. This leads the authors to suggest that more work needs to be done to refine the instruction from small group to class size groups.
Theoretical Conclusions
The results from this study will provide further theoretical development and practical applications. This study presented a qualitative difference between strategy instruction alone and strategy instruction with self-regulation procedures. The power of the difference was in the maintenance of the learning within the writing process.
Methodological Conclusions
The authors of this study distinguished between strategy instruction alone and strategy and self-regulation procedures. Previous research had not made that discrimination. This then allows future researchers to test the generalizability of these results. It also opens the door to look at the effect of strategy and self-regulation instruction on different writing genre.
Practical Conclusions
Implementation of the self-regulation strategies will need to be attempted with larger groups of students and with different age groups. The research was conducted over a short interval and would benefit from a more extended time frame.
Reference
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007) Improving Fourth-Grade Students’ Composition Skills: Effects of Strategy Instruction and Self-Regulation Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297-310
Literature Review
This article was chosen for review because it integrated improving composition skills with strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. The article, written by Glaser & Brunstein (2007), extends the work of Graham & Harris (2003). The reason I chose this article is that it was set in Germany and demonstrates both the international interest in this topic and power of the strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures for improving complex cognitive tasks such as writing.
Problem
Many students struggle with writing. When we look at writing scores in state standards tests writing is often an area of weakness for many students. The hypothesis for this study is that strategy instruction combined with self –regulation procedures would (a) improve the effectiveness of writing strategies training (b) increase the maintenance of learned strategies across time; and (c) facilitate the generalization, or transfer, of the learned strategies across time. (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007 p. 298-299).
Methods
One hundred thirteen (113) fourth graders attending six classes in three elementary schools from middle-class neighborhoods in Germany were the participants in the study. The six classes were randomly assigned to three conditions. The students from two intact classes were assigned to each of the conditions: strategy plus self-regulation, (22 girls and 19 boys), strategy only (19 girls and 15 boys), and control conditions (15 girls and 23 boys).
The study involved a quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test, follow-up design. Writing instruction in 45 minute lessons was delivered in four weekly sessions. The mixed-ability experimental groups were taught by university graduate assistants while the control groups were taught by their regular teachers. Pre- and post-test materials were administered 1 week before and 3 days after the intervention. Maintenance probes were administered 5 weeks after the post-testing. The study controlled for maintenance by the all teachers agreeing to not assign story composition tasks for their students between post-test and probe.
Strategy instruction based on SRSD studies, (Harris & Graham, 1999; Harris & Pressley, 1991) were the techniques used in the strategy only and strategy and self-regulation groups. The techniques were: activation of background knowledge; direct instruction and group discussions of strategies; cognitive modeling of each step; reciting mnemonics to retrieve each step from memory; guided, collaborative and independent practice in drafting and rewriting stories; progress feedback on quality; and verbal scaffolding of instructional support.
The self-regulation procedures were explicitly taught and followed by guided and independent practice. The four procedures were (a) self-monitoring of strategic planning, (b) self-assessment of writing performance, (c) self-monitoring of revision activities, and (d) criterion setting and procedural goals.
Results
One hundred and thirteen students were available for statistical analysis. Both experimental groups out-performed the control group on the post-test. But only the strategy and self-regulation group maintained their learning at the maintenance probe 5 weeks after the intervention. At the end of the 5 week period the strategy only group relapsed to their pre-test levels in writing skills. The control group did not make significant gains in writing skill.
Discussion
Since both strategy and strategy and self-regulation groups out-performed the control it appears likely that the strategy only group could be used as a comparison as to the effectiveness of the combination intervention. Taken with the results that the students who received the didactic lessons showed limited improvement over the course of the study, it appears that extended practice on writing alone was not enough to make the difference.
Critique
The strength in this study is that it was able to isolate self-regulation learning from strategy instruction alone. The study was able to isolate the importance of self-reflective practices for the success of SRSD. The researchers were also able because of the three interventions to identify that self-regulation needs to be taught, that it does not automatically evolve when task specific strategies are taught.
The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the researchers. They were unable to identify if certain self-regulation strategies would be most effective with which part of the writing process. They also identified the lack of assessment of motivation variables between students within the 3 groups. One difference between the strategy and strategy and self-regulatory training group and the control group was that the control group was taught in their regular classes while the 2 other groups were taught in small mixed ability groups. This leads the authors to suggest that more work needs to be done to refine the instruction from small group to class size groups.
Theoretical Conclusions
The results from this study will provide further theoretical development and practical applications. This study presented a qualitative difference between strategy instruction alone and strategy instruction with self-regulation procedures. The power of the difference was in the maintenance of the learning within the writing process.
Methodological Conclusions
The authors of this study distinguished between strategy instruction alone and strategy and self-regulation procedures. Previous research had not made that discrimination. This then allows future researchers to test the generalizability of these results. It also opens the door to look at the effect of strategy and self-regulation instruction on different writing genre.
Practical Conclusions
Implementation of the self-regulation strategies will need to be attempted with larger groups of students and with different age groups. The research was conducted over a short interval and would benefit from a more extended time frame.
Reference
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007) Improving Fourth-Grade Students’ Composition Skills: Effects of Strategy Instruction and Self-Regulation Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297-310
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Vrugt & Oort (2008)
Vrugt, A. & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition Learning, 30, 123-146.
Literature Review
The reason I chose to review Vrugt & Oort’s (2008) article, was my interest in this model of effective self-regulated learning that was developed and tested using path analysis. Based on the data, pathways were used in the models to represent the causal relationships. The model researched was comprised of achievement goals, metacognition, study strategies, and academic achievement. I am also interested in achievement goal theory and its impact on learning.
Problem
Based on previous empirical research and core concepts in the theoretical models of self-regulated learning, the relationships between achievement goals, metacognition, strategy use and achievement were placed into a complex causal model and tested. The constructs being measured were the interrelationships between mastery and performance goals and metacognition, study strategies, and academic achievement. Mastery goals orient students toward learning and understanding, developing new skills, and focusing on self-improvement while performance goals represent a concern with demonstrating ability, obtaining recognition, and attempting to surpass others. A distinction was made between approach and avoidance forms of performance goals. Performance-approach goals involve individuals positively motivated to try to outperform others and demonstrate their competency while performance-avoidance goals involve individuals who are negatively motivated to try to avoid failure or avoid looking incompetent. The model for effective self-regulated learning tested in this study was a synthesis of previous research.
Methods
Eight hundred four students (31% men, 69% women) participated in this study and were involved in a number of collective test sessions. A week before the Introduction to Psychology exam, which included multiple-choice questions to test students’ use of surface cognitive strategies and essay questions which required deep cognitive processing, the MSLQ (Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire), Achievement Goals Questionnaire, and AILI (Awareness of Independent Learning Inventory) were administered to the participants. Effective self-regulators and less effective self-regulators were statistically determined based on responses to the questions on the MSLQ. Students with high effort investment represented effective self-regulators while students displaying low effort investment represented the less effective self-regulators. The researchers controlled for intellectual ability, age, and gender.
Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the relationships between the research variables and fit the model to the data of the effective self-regulators group and the less effective self-regulators group. Pathway analysis was used to determine the relative strength of the relationships between the relevant variables for effective and less effective self-regulated learners.
Results
Eight hundred four students were used in the data analysis. Four hundred twenty-one students were characterized as effective self-regulators while three hundred eighty-three students where characterized as less effective self-regulators. The first model that mapped out the patterns of interrelationships between achievement goals, metacognition, study strategies and academic achievement for effective and less effective self-regulatory participants did not have a good fit; therefore modifications to this original model were made by adding the effects of achievement goals on study strategies to construct the second model map for effective self-regulators. The fit of model map two was close. A third model map was produced identifying the patterns of interrelationships for less effective self-regulators. The fit of this third model map was also close.
Results from this study indicate that effective self-regulated learning involves metacognitve and strategy pathways. Metacognitive pathways involved a positive relationship with mastery goals and a negative relationship with performance-avoidance goals. Strategy pathways involved positive effects of mastery and performance-approach goals with the use of metacognitive and deep cognitive strategies while performance-approach goals positively affected the use of surface cognitive and resource management strategies as well. An unexpected result for the researchers was that mastery and performance-approach goals were positively related to the use of deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies while performance-avoidance goals were not related to the use of surface cognitive strategies and resource management strategies as hypothesized.
There were six relationships that differed between the effective self-regulators and less effective self-regulators. Mastery and performance-approach goals had a large positive relationship while mastery goals and performance-avoidance goals were unrelated. Less effective self-regulators’ pursuit of performance-avoidance goals was unrelated to metacognition as well as metacognition being unrelated to the use of surface cognitive strategies. Two additional effects that occurred with less effective self-regulated learners were a negative effect of avoidance goals on deep processing and a positive effect of mastery goals on resource management.
Discussion
The predictions made concerning the effects of performance goals were based on research that did not distinguish between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and showed that performance goals were unrelated to the use of deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies. This study distinguished between approach and avoidance goals and found that performance-approach goals predicted the use of deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies while performance-avoidance goals were not related to the use of these strategies. The results from this study are similar to findings from Sperling et al. (2004) who measured knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition of first-year university students from the USA. Vrugt & Oorts (2008) measured knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition and metacognitive experience of first-year university students in the Netherlands. Both studies found a positive relationship between the connection in metacognitive actions and students’ use of all study strategies and Vrugt & Oort (2008) suggest that this finding may be generalized to novices in different academic settings.
Critique
There were several weaknesses in this study. The participants were not representative of a larger population due to the fact that they were first-year students in a college psychology class and predominantly female. Due to the use of self-report surveys to obtain information on the participants’ engagement in metacognitive activities and use of study skills did not ensure that they were actually using the skills reported. The results of this study were based on the scores obtained on the psychology exam that used multiple-choice and essay questions. The models that resulted from this study were specific only to this type of testing and cannot be generalized to other forms of tests.
There were also many strengths to this study. A great deal of previous empirical research was used to design this study. Several concepts in the theoretical models of self-regulated learning were put into a complex causal model to test their relationships. Several instruments were used to identify the various relationships being tested and intellectual ability, gender and age were used as control variables. When the first model was found to be a poor fit, a step by step modification process was used by adding the direct effects of achievement goals on study strategies to create model two and model three which resulted in a close fit
Theoretical Implications
The results from this study will provide further theoretical development and practical applications. This study presented qualitative differences between effective and less effective self-regulators which will contribute to the theoretical development regarding less effective self-regulated learning.
Methodological Implications
The authors of this study distinguished between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals while interpreting the findings from this study. Previous research did not distinguish between the two; therefore this study found that performance-approach goals predicted deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies while performance-avoidance goals were not related to these strategies.
Practical Implications
Practical implications that emerged from this study include the possibility of scaffolding to support students in the development of becoming effective self-regulated learners. By comparing the models of effective self-regulated learners with less effective self-regulated learners and observing the pathways that led to effective self-regulated learning, it would be possible to teach students those skills that guide effective self-regulated learning and possibly direct students away from the skills that led to less effective self-regulated learning.
Literature Review
The reason I chose to review Vrugt & Oort’s (2008) article, was my interest in this model of effective self-regulated learning that was developed and tested using path analysis. Based on the data, pathways were used in the models to represent the causal relationships. The model researched was comprised of achievement goals, metacognition, study strategies, and academic achievement. I am also interested in achievement goal theory and its impact on learning.
Problem
Based on previous empirical research and core concepts in the theoretical models of self-regulated learning, the relationships between achievement goals, metacognition, strategy use and achievement were placed into a complex causal model and tested. The constructs being measured were the interrelationships between mastery and performance goals and metacognition, study strategies, and academic achievement. Mastery goals orient students toward learning and understanding, developing new skills, and focusing on self-improvement while performance goals represent a concern with demonstrating ability, obtaining recognition, and attempting to surpass others. A distinction was made between approach and avoidance forms of performance goals. Performance-approach goals involve individuals positively motivated to try to outperform others and demonstrate their competency while performance-avoidance goals involve individuals who are negatively motivated to try to avoid failure or avoid looking incompetent. The model for effective self-regulated learning tested in this study was a synthesis of previous research.
Methods
Eight hundred four students (31% men, 69% women) participated in this study and were involved in a number of collective test sessions. A week before the Introduction to Psychology exam, which included multiple-choice questions to test students’ use of surface cognitive strategies and essay questions which required deep cognitive processing, the MSLQ (Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire), Achievement Goals Questionnaire, and AILI (Awareness of Independent Learning Inventory) were administered to the participants. Effective self-regulators and less effective self-regulators were statistically determined based on responses to the questions on the MSLQ. Students with high effort investment represented effective self-regulators while students displaying low effort investment represented the less effective self-regulators. The researchers controlled for intellectual ability, age, and gender.
Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the relationships between the research variables and fit the model to the data of the effective self-regulators group and the less effective self-regulators group. Pathway analysis was used to determine the relative strength of the relationships between the relevant variables for effective and less effective self-regulated learners.
Results
Eight hundred four students were used in the data analysis. Four hundred twenty-one students were characterized as effective self-regulators while three hundred eighty-three students where characterized as less effective self-regulators. The first model that mapped out the patterns of interrelationships between achievement goals, metacognition, study strategies and academic achievement for effective and less effective self-regulatory participants did not have a good fit; therefore modifications to this original model were made by adding the effects of achievement goals on study strategies to construct the second model map for effective self-regulators. The fit of model map two was close. A third model map was produced identifying the patterns of interrelationships for less effective self-regulators. The fit of this third model map was also close.
Results from this study indicate that effective self-regulated learning involves metacognitve and strategy pathways. Metacognitive pathways involved a positive relationship with mastery goals and a negative relationship with performance-avoidance goals. Strategy pathways involved positive effects of mastery and performance-approach goals with the use of metacognitive and deep cognitive strategies while performance-approach goals positively affected the use of surface cognitive and resource management strategies as well. An unexpected result for the researchers was that mastery and performance-approach goals were positively related to the use of deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies while performance-avoidance goals were not related to the use of surface cognitive strategies and resource management strategies as hypothesized.
There were six relationships that differed between the effective self-regulators and less effective self-regulators. Mastery and performance-approach goals had a large positive relationship while mastery goals and performance-avoidance goals were unrelated. Less effective self-regulators’ pursuit of performance-avoidance goals was unrelated to metacognition as well as metacognition being unrelated to the use of surface cognitive strategies. Two additional effects that occurred with less effective self-regulated learners were a negative effect of avoidance goals on deep processing and a positive effect of mastery goals on resource management.
Discussion
The predictions made concerning the effects of performance goals were based on research that did not distinguish between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and showed that performance goals were unrelated to the use of deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies. This study distinguished between approach and avoidance goals and found that performance-approach goals predicted the use of deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies while performance-avoidance goals were not related to the use of these strategies. The results from this study are similar to findings from Sperling et al. (2004) who measured knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition of first-year university students from the USA. Vrugt & Oorts (2008) measured knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition and metacognitive experience of first-year university students in the Netherlands. Both studies found a positive relationship between the connection in metacognitive actions and students’ use of all study strategies and Vrugt & Oort (2008) suggest that this finding may be generalized to novices in different academic settings.
Critique
There were several weaknesses in this study. The participants were not representative of a larger population due to the fact that they were first-year students in a college psychology class and predominantly female. Due to the use of self-report surveys to obtain information on the participants’ engagement in metacognitive activities and use of study skills did not ensure that they were actually using the skills reported. The results of this study were based on the scores obtained on the psychology exam that used multiple-choice and essay questions. The models that resulted from this study were specific only to this type of testing and cannot be generalized to other forms of tests.
There were also many strengths to this study. A great deal of previous empirical research was used to design this study. Several concepts in the theoretical models of self-regulated learning were put into a complex causal model to test their relationships. Several instruments were used to identify the various relationships being tested and intellectual ability, gender and age were used as control variables. When the first model was found to be a poor fit, a step by step modification process was used by adding the direct effects of achievement goals on study strategies to create model two and model three which resulted in a close fit
Theoretical Implications
The results from this study will provide further theoretical development and practical applications. This study presented qualitative differences between effective and less effective self-regulators which will contribute to the theoretical development regarding less effective self-regulated learning.
Methodological Implications
The authors of this study distinguished between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals while interpreting the findings from this study. Previous research did not distinguish between the two; therefore this study found that performance-approach goals predicted deep cognitive and metacognitive strategies while performance-avoidance goals were not related to these strategies.
Practical Implications
Practical implications that emerged from this study include the possibility of scaffolding to support students in the development of becoming effective self-regulated learners. By comparing the models of effective self-regulated learners with less effective self-regulated learners and observing the pathways that led to effective self-regulated learning, it would be possible to teach students those skills that guide effective self-regulated learning and possibly direct students away from the skills that led to less effective self-regulated learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)