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
Sunday, April 5, 2009
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)