Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 157–171 | Cite as

Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance

  • Saskia Kistner
  • Katrin Rakoczy
  • Barbara Otto
  • Charlotte Dignath-van Ewijk
  • Gerhard Büttner
  • Eckhard Klieme
Article

Abstract

An implication of the current research on self-regulation is to implement the promotion of self-regulated learning in schools. Teachers can promote self-regulated learning either directly by teaching learning strategies or indirectly by arranging a learning environment that enables students to practise self-regulation. This study investigates teachers’ direct and indirect promotion of self-regulated learning and its relation to the development of students’ performance. Twenty German mathematics teachers with their overall 538 students (grade 9) were videotaped for a three-lesson unit on the Pythagorean Theorem. Students’ mathematics performance was tested several times before and after the observed lessons. A low-inferent coding system was applied to assess the teachers’ implicit or explicit instruction of cognitive strategies (e.g., organisation), metacognitive strategies (e.g., planning), and motivational strategies (e.g., resource management). High-inferent ratings were used to assess features of the learning environment that foster self-regulation. Results reveal that a great amount of strategy teaching takes place in an implicit way, whereas explicit strategy teaching and supportive learning environment are rare. The instruction of organisation strategies and some features of the learning environment (constructivism, transfer) relate positively to students’ performance development. In contrast to implicit strategy instruction, explicit strategy instruction was associated with a gain in performance. These results reveal a discrepancy between the usefulness of explicit strategy instruction and its rare occurrence in classrooms.

Keywords

Self-regulated learning Learning environment Video observation Instructional effectiveness Classroom research 

References

  1. Artelt, C. (2000). Strategisches Lernen [Strategic learning]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  2. Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1(2), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: on training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14–21.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11. 38–46.Google Scholar
  6. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Masui, C. (2004). The CLIA-model: a framework for designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dignath, C. C., & Büttner, G. (2010). Assessing how teachers enhance self-regulated learning (ATES)—Development of an observation instrument for the primary and secondary school classroom. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers’ coaching of learning and its relation to students’ strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics. Technical report on the nationwide survey. Mathematical Science. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  14. Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität und mathematisches Verständnis im internationalen Vergleich. [Quality of instruction and mathematical understanding in international comparison]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31(3), 194–205.Google Scholar
  16. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (Eds). (2006). Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis”. [Documentation of the data collection and analysis instruments of the Swiss-German video study “Quality of instruction, learning, and mathematical understanding“]. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF.Google Scholar
  17. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  18. Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (1999). Enhancing learning and problem solving skills: orienting and self-judging, two powerful and trainable learning tools. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (2005). Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moely, B. E., Hart, S. S., Leal, L., Santulli, K. A., Rao, N., Johnson, T., et al. (1992). The teacher’s role in facilitating memory and study strategy development in the elementary school classroom. Child Development, 63(3), 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Otto, B. (2010). How can motivated self-regulated learning be improved? In A. Mourad & J. de la Fuente Arias (Eds.), International perspectives on applying self-regulated learning in different settings. Frankfurt am Main: Lang (in press).Google Scholar
  25. Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005). Training of self-regulatory and problem-solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (1996). Cultural differences in the use of strategies for self-regulated learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 845–871.Google Scholar
  29. Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., & Harks, B. (2008). The interplay between student evaluation and instruction: grading and feedback in mathematics classrooms. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 111–124.Google Scholar
  30. Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 64–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2006). Erfassung selbstregulierten Lernens mit Selbstberichtsverfahren: Ein Überblick zum Stand der Forschung [Assessing selfregulated learning with self-report measures: a state-of-the-art review]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20(3), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thillmann, H. (2007). Selbstreguliertes Lernen durch Experimentieren: Von der Erfassung zur Förderung [Self-regulated learning by experimenting. Assessment and support] (Doctoral thesis, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany). Retrieved from http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-18970/Dissertation_Thillmann_online-Version.pdf.
  34. 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 [Learning strategies and metacognition. Theoretical and practical implications] (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  35. Veenman, M. V. J. (2007). The assessment of metacognition: A matter of multi-method designs. EAPA Newsletter of the European Association of Psychological Assessment, 1, 8–9. Retrieved from http://www.eapa-homepage.org/eapa/_downloads/eapa-newsletter-200710.pdf.
  36. 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
  37. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Learning to solve mathematical application problems: a design experiment with fifth graders. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(3), 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waeytens, K., Lens, W., & Vandenberghe, R. (2002). ‘Learning to learn’: teachers’ conceptions of their supporting role. Learning and Instruction, 12(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacogntive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning as a competence: Implications of theoretical models for assessment methods. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 102–110.Google Scholar
  43. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1997). ConQuest: Multi-aspect test software. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.Google Scholar
  50. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saskia Kistner
    • 1
  • Katrin Rakoczy
    • 2
  • Barbara Otto
    • 1
  • Charlotte Dignath-van Ewijk
    • 3
  • Gerhard Büttner
    • 1
  • Eckhard Klieme
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt/MainGermany
  2. 2.German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF)Frankfurt/MainGermany
  3. 3.Department of Educational ScienceUniversity of GroningenTG GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations