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.
Showing posts with label research review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research review. Show all posts
Sunday, April 5, 2009
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.
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)