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.
