Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 2, Issue 2–3, pp 177–183 | Cite as

The assessment and instruction of self-regulation in computer-based environments: a discussion

  • Marcel V. J. Veenman
Article

A discussion has been going on over two decades whether self-regulation is subordinate to metacognition, or whether self-regulation is superordinate to metacognition (Veenman et al. 2006). Some researchers have equated self-regulation with executive or metacognitive skills (cf. Brown and DeLoache 1978; Kluwe 1987; Vermunt 1986; Veenman et al. 1993; Winne 1996), whereas more recently self-regulation is defined as a broader set of knowledge and skills, including domain-specific knowledge, cognitive skills, metacognitive knowledge and skills, and motivational processes (cf. Boekaerts et al. 2000; Schraw et al. 2002; Schunk and Zimmerman 1994). In the latter case, to me it seems important to disentangle the several components of self-regulation (see also Borkowski et al. 2000). Depending on the nature of the learning task the weight of self-regulatory components may vary. For instance, when domain-specific knowledge is lacking or when the learning task is very difficult, metacognitive...

Keywords

Convergent Validity Metacognitive Skill Intelligent Tutor System Advanced Student Metacognitive Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–41). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and self-regulation. In R. S. Siegel (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 3–35). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. De Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology, Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  6. De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated leaning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. (2006). Metacognitive competent reading is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning and Instruction, 16, 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schraw, G., Kauffman, D. F., & Lehman, S. (2002). Self-regulated learning theory. In L. Nadel (Ed.), The encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 1063–1073). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  13. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  15. Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14, 619–638.Google Scholar
  16. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Groen, M. G. M. (1993). Thinking aloud: does it affect regulatory processes in learning. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 18, 322–330.Google Scholar
  17. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and Learning: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1986). Regulation of learning, approaches to studying and learning styles of adult students. In P. R. J. Simons, & G. Berkhof (Eds.), The regulation of learning (pp. 15–32). The Hague: SVO.Google Scholar
  19. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Educational PsychologyLeiden University—Institute for Psychological ResearchLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Graduate School of Teaching and LearningUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations