21 Metacognition and self-regulatedlearning
Teachers asking challenging questions—guiding pupils with oral feedback, prompting dialogue, and scaffolding productive ‘exploratory’ talk where appropriate—is an ideal way to share and develop effective learning. 31 The teacher in the opening example helps pupils to understand how to construct a branching key—the cognitive strategies needed. She also encourages them to discuss what they found hard, and to think in advance about what could go wrong. All the time, she is guiding and probing thinking, getting pupils to listen actively and respond. It is the stuff of great teaching, but too often, if we do not name the strategies, such expert development of metacognitive talk can remain implicit and hidden.
Schmitz & Perels, 2011). The effects of SRL training on students’ achievement and metacognition as it pertains to this study are discussed below.
Effects of SRL Training on Achievement
In terms of students’ achievement in chemistry, there were significant differences in mean scores for students in the experimental group compare to the control group. These findings are consistent with previous research which found that students who were taught SRL have higher levels of achievement in science test scores. For example, Avezedo and Cromley (2004) found that SRL training given to the undergraduate students enabled them to improve in the mental representation of the scientific concepts. This study was similar to the present study in the sense that students also received training on the use of SRL variables designed to foster their conceptual understanding while the control students received no training. Similar results were also reported by Leidinger and Perels (2012) in their study with 4th graders in their mathematics lessons over 6-weeks. Self-regulatedlearning strategies were embedded into the learning material for the experimental group which resulted in higher improvement in their mathematical achievement. In this study, students in the experimental group were taught face to face to self-regulate their learning strategies at different stages of the lesson on rate of chemical reaction while those in the control group were taught the content of the rate of chemical reaction only.
The triumvirate of motivation, metacognition and self-regulatedlearning (SRL) offers significant affordances to learning science at the same time as researching these constructs poses substantial challenges. On the side of affordances, these three factors, broadly construed, provide raw material for engineering the bulk of an account about why and how learners develop knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and interests. Add to these factors additional data about a learner’s prior knowledge – its amount, cognitive configuration and retrievability – plus a short list of “primitive” capabilities such as working memory span and inhibition, and it is theoretically plausible to assemble a comprehensive model of learning.
This study is intended to fill the gap that exists with regard to investigations that examine the impact of both self-regulatedlearning and metacognition on the GPA of college students. This study contributes to the understanding of any predictive relationship that may exist between both SRL and metacognitive abilities on GPA. Better understanding any relationships between or withing these concepts is likely to increase the quality of preservice teacher training if such concepts are related to the ultimate achievement of students within any teacher education program. The purpose of this study is to investigate if metacognition and self-regulatedlearning together predict GPAs of students who study within the department of elementary education in the Faculty of Education at a university in Turkey. Two primary research questions included:
attaining finer grained measures of academic performance due to the discrepancies between their
assignments. Anselmi, Reuman, Howe, Brady, and Avery (2013) found long-term group projects
to exhibit higher levels of self-regulatedlearning, indicating that metacognition might be more
applicable to certain tasks than others. Therefore, future research should take into consideration
As noted, self-regulatedlearning strategies for this study were based on
Zimmerman’s model which incorporated four exercises associated with each o f the three phases: forethought (goal setting exercise), performance phase (self-monitoring and time management exercises), and self-reflection (self-evaluation exercise). Participants completed these exercises weekly for three weeks and took the MSLQ the last day o f class to assess their metacognition levels. The findings support the literature which links training in self-regulatedlearning to higher levels o f metacognition (Kramarski and Mevarech, 2003; Yost 2003). W hen students were introduced to SRL exercises they performed better in their classes than those students who were not introduced to the exercises. The study supports what Zimmerman’s model predicts — all students have the ability to self-regulate, but the degree to which they do differs by student characteristics such as prior achievement (Bol and Gamer, 2011). However, if students are taught to self-regulate, particularly lower achieving students, then their ability to be more successful in the classroom may increase.
Self-regulatedlearning: comparing online and classroom courses in cognition, metacognition, motivation, emotions, contexts, and behavior.
This research aims at evaluating the use of cognition, metacognition, motivational, emotional, contextual and behavioral processes in self-regulatedlearning in online and traditional classroom environments for two separate experiments with two groups each. We used a questionnaire developed based on the adaptation of six existing scales, with the addition of a general section about the course itself. By contrasting the two experiments, results were consistent for online courses suggesting a higher mastery of motivation and positive emotions after taking the course, although it was in many ways similar to a traditional course. Finally, online course might have been associated with higher scores in context control than traditional course but it could depend of the course content.
Research and survey participants confirm the importance of self-regulatedlearning on learning outcomes and as informal learning becomes more prevalent in the 21 st century it is important to prepare learners for success in settings where they are provided more autonomy and control over the content and delivery of their learning (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011, p.422). Social Cognitive and Cognitive Constructivists argue for learner centered environments with a lot of dialogue and engagement support learner’s discovery and sharing of experiences and the creation of meaningful cognitive pathways (King, 1993, p. 30-35). However, studies have shown that minimal instruction is only successful in situations where there is considerable structure, previous knowledge and learning support unless learners have a high knowledge for internal guidance (Kirshner, 2006). Self-regulatedlearning can compensate for this discrepancy but first learners need to master the underlying skills including metacognition and critical thinking, which are two of the core facets to effective self-regulation (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011).
5. suggest the learner identify possible outcomes and desirable end states Explicit tutorial feedback removes a level of interpretation for the learner. Rather than guessing or inferring the cognitive and emotional states of virtual humans, a clear statement by a tutor can act as a strong scaffold for learning in immersive cultural environments. There are certainly cognitive aspects to the tactics listed above, but they also address the metacognitive demands of intercultural development. Tactics 1-3 encourage self-assessment by describing the impact of a learner’s actions on a virtual human. Because this is feedback being delivered in a real-time environment, the issues of distraction and cognitive overload need to be considered. Thus, it is ideal to keep “in-game” feedback short and precise, saving the longer explanations for post-practice reflection. This is the approach taken in the ELECT Bi-Lateral negotiation game ). Hinting (tactic 4) can be direct (and at the cognitive level), but also can be used to encourage the learner to think about pros and cons of taking different actions – this is especially important in ill-defined domains where assessment is inherently challenging . The content of tactics 1-4 are precisely the things we want the learner speculating on before acting in the environment. In other words, the ultimate aim is for the learner to self-guide in these precise ways. Such cognitive activities by the learner would constitute attempts at self-explanation. Tactic 5, identifying potential end states, is a purely metacognitive tactic that is geared towards supporting goal formation and identifying “what right looks like.” Encouraging the learner to “think before acting”, to engage in planning and simulate hypothetical actions, and “reflect after acting” are at the core of metacognitive maturity and a fundamental requirement for growth through the DMIS stages.
Already, for several decades, researchers have been investigating different aspects of motivation and emotion (e.g., Bachman, 1970; Fennema & Sherman, 1976; Schoenfeld, 1989; Leder, 1982). In recent years, self-regulation researchers have looked at motivation and emotion in parallel (Artino, 2009; Duckworth, Akerman, MacGregor, Salter, & Vorhaus, 2009): examining the effects of positive and negative emotions on the adoption of achievement goals, cognitive processes, and achievements. Research has shown that affect guides and regulates cognitive and motivational systems (Olafson & Ferraro, 2001; Pintrich, 2003). It also produces a change in working memory load by occupying cognitive resources that could be devoted to the academic task. Emotions affect cognitive processing in various ways: they lead to particular emphases in attention and memory; they activate action tendencies; and they are regarded as functional and playing a key part in human coping and adaptation (Zan, Brown, Evans, & Hannula, 2006).
over material that they had learned and expand the ideas or the linkages between ideas in relation to the original learning, explore internal experience (Moon, 2006). Journal-writing has been associated with improved capacities for metacognition and self regulation (Nuckels; Huber, & Renkl, 2009). In research carried out on self-regulation, writing learning journals is one of the most used methods for measuring the self-regulation behaviours (Schmitz & Wiese, 2006). Webber et al. (1993) imply that journals enable relationships between the self-regulation cycle and the learning goals of the students. Arsal (2009) revealed that learning journals usage affected the metacognitive strategies of the students positively while it had no significant effect on cognitive strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration and organization.
It is generally accepted that self-regulatedlearning consists of several key factors such as motivation, metacognition, and learning strategies (Chung, 2000). It is an approach to teaching and learning that actively engages students in the learning process for the purpose of acquiring outcomes at higher levels of cognitive complexity (Rallis, Rossman, Phlegar, & Abeille, 1995 in Borich, 2000). It is used to describe independent learning which involves metacognition, intrinsic motivation and teacher strategic action (Williams, 2000; Winne & Perry, 2000). The transition from conscious ‘other regulation’ (parents and teachers) to conscious self-regulation is stressed “as an important factor in allowing children to gain conscious control of their cognitive processing” (Cole & Chan, 1994, p. 411). In this respect, self-regulation is also an individual’s conscious use of mental strategies for the purpose of improving thinking and learning.
operationalisation of self-regulatory capacity, coming to the conclusion that there is no simple and straightforward definition of the construct of SR. The system of self-regulation comprises a complex, superordinate set of functions…located at the junction of several fields of psychological research” (2005, p. 200). Illustrating this is, for example, a special edition of the Educational Psychology Review devoted to delineating the concepts of metacognition, self-regulation, and self- regulatedlearning (Alexander, 2008). Here, Dinsmore, Alexander, and Laughlin (2008) reviewed 255 studies from 2003 to 2007 within the field of educational psychology that dealt with one (or more) of these concepts. They point out that although there is a “conceptual core binding the three constructs” (p. 404) they are not synonymous. Broadly speaking, theories of self-regulation focus on the important role of the environment in triggering regulation; metacognition focuses on the mind (cognition) of the individual, while self-regulatedlearning is concerned with academic
These four assumptions clearly come to the fore when analyzing the SRL process: Self- regulated learners will carefully plan their learning activities before they initiate a specific task. The starting point is to analyze the task at hand and to determine the task (e.g., what is the task about?) and personal features (e.g., what knowledge can I apply? Do I find the task interesting?). Subsequently, goals are set and plans are devised in order to enact tactics and strategies. During those steps, self-regulated learners reflect on the steps that were taken, monitor their progress, and change their plans accordingly (Winne and Hadwin 1998 ). SRL processes involve metacognition, intrinsic motivation, affective factors, and strategic action (Pintrich 2004 ; Winne and Perry 2000 ), which happen within a specific context (e.g., classroom). Those elements nicely concur with Zimmerman ’s ( 1989 ) definition of SRL: “Students can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacog- nitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process” (p. 329).
The emergence of SRL as concept has deepened our understanding of the fundamental processes of cognition, metacognition and resource management strategies in learning. SRL has achieved the merging and integration of the concepts of cognition, metacognition, behaviour and environmental management, which have until recently developed separately (Dowell and Small 2012; Jones, Estell and Alexander 2008). 'Cognitive strategies' refers to the integration of new knowledge into prior knowledge and the contribution strategies make in learning, remembering and understanding new tasks. 'Metacognitive strategies' refers to the planning, monitoring and evaluation of the student's own cognition, and the way a student reflects on the learning strategies in the setting of goals, planning and regulating of his or her own effort. 'Resource management' refers to the management and control of other people and the environment in the learning process, and includes effort, use of time, establishment of a study environment and help seeking.
elements of performance, had access to the same training materials (e.g., instruction manual), and were given the same degree of control over the content, sequence, and pace of the training. Specifically, all trainees could exercise control over what they study and practice (content), the order in which they study and practice the material (sequence), and the pace of their learning, such as how much time to spend studying the computerized manual or reviewing feedback. For design reasons, however, it was necessary to impose maximum time limits on the study and practice sessions. However, only the control condition was a “pure” learner control situation because the other two conditions provided trainees with guidance. Before the first training session, individuals in the learner control condition were given a randomized list of learning topics and were told that the list outlined all important task concepts and skills, but what they chose to study and practice was at their discretion. Following each practice trial learner control trainees received feedback on the same dimensions as other trainees, but did not receive any guidance information.
the Activity Recommender (AR) (see section “Activity Recommender”). The objective of this evaluation was to uncover strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement of the proposed approach and implementation. Therefore, useful- ness of the learning support, usability of the developed software, and general feedback were questioned. The evaluation has been conducted in two different settings: The first evaluation took place in at the University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany and the second evaluation took place at the Shanghai Jiao Tong Univer- sity in China. Summarising the results, there was a clear indication that the students appreciate guidance and help during the learning process. Some of the students liked the idea of getting recommendations for learning strategies and techniques for improving their learning. However, some students did not understand that recom- mendations are suggestions and not “must-do” instructions. Usability turned out as being the weakest point of AR. Without supervision and human support, many students had difficulties with the proper usage of the AR. Concluding these results, the approach of recommending learning activities is useful for and appreciated by students, whose SRL competences are not very low, but who do not apply SRL activities during their learning process. However, very weak self-regulated learners need sound introduction to SRL not only on pure technological level, but also in terms of human explanation, an introductory course, or videos.
Difficult words were discussed and the instructor asked follow-up questions to check the students’ understanding. The findings indicated that the participants’ self-regulation of their reading behaviors resulted in greater gains in their critical reading skills, as well as motivation to read. Antoniou and Souvignier (2007) used an instructional program that involved the explicit teaching of reading enriched with the use of self-regulation strategies to improve the reading comprehension of learners with learning disability. The program included recognizing and activating prior knowledge by thinking, identifying text structures, and making prediction; it also focused on monitoring for comprehension and finding meaning of unknown words, summarizing based on text genre, and self-regulation via a checklist plan.
Providing instruction and support at a suitable level for learners was a theme which was returned to in the closing discussion of the first day. Many participants admitted to struggling with this issue, especially in larger classes where one-to-one support is rarely possible, such as the course described by Martin Mullen and Chris Fitzgerald, from Meisei University, in their presentation on the teacher’s role in fostering learner autonomy. Even in my work as an advisor, where I do have the opportunity to work with individual learners, it can often be very difficult to gauge the degree of guidance suitable for each student at each stage in their learning. In addition to different approaches being employed for learners at different stages, individual advisors and teachers also differ in their approaches, and while there may be a general consensus in much of the literature to avoid too much prescription, from the