Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 255–273 | Cite as

Self-monitoring of self-regulation during math homework behaviour using standardized diaries

  • Bernhard Schmitz
  • Franziska Perels
Article

Abstract

This study aims at enhancing math learning and general self-regulation by supporting daily self-regulated learning during math homework. The authors use standardized diaries as a self-monitoring tool to support self-regulatory behaviour. Following the theory of self-monitoring, frequent selfmonitoring of self-regulation will lead to an enhancement of self-regulated learning. Complete data stem from a sample of 195 8th grade students. 95 students from the experimental group answer questions in diaries for a period of 49 days and participate in the pre-post measurement whereas the control group only works on the pre- and posttests. The diary consists of questions regarding main components of self-regulation. The time-series analyses of the diary variables show a positive linear trend for self-regulation. The results of the analyses of variance for the pre-post experimental-control group comparison yielded time by group interactions for self-regulation and the math test.

Keywords

Self-monitoring Self-regulation Diaries Time-series Homework Math 

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., Lehmann, R., Lehrke, M., Schmitz, B., Clausen, C., Hosenfeld, I., et al. (1997). TIMSS- Mathematisch- naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich.[Third International Mathematics and Science Study- International comparison of mathematic and science classes.]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  4. Brandstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1988). Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Flexibilität der Zielanpassung und Tenazität der Zielverfolgung.[Questionnaire to measure the flexibility of goal adjustment and the durability of goal pursuance.] Arbeitsgruppe “Entwicklung und Handeln” (Hrsg.), Hartnäckige Zielverfolgung und flexible Zielanpassung. Zur Explikation und altersvergleichenden Analyse assimilativer und akkomodativer Kontroll- und Bewältigungsstrategien. Trier: Universitätsveröffentlichung.Google Scholar
  5. Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to actions: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal-directed behaviour: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 134–159). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Hertzog, C., & Nesselroad, J. R. (2003). Assessing psychological change in adulthood: An overview of methodological issues. Psychology and Aging, 18, 639–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and meta-cognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). VCQ- Volitional components questionnaire. Osnabrueck: University of Osnabrueck.Google Scholar
  10. Mevarech, Z., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition Learning, 1, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morgan, M. (1985). Self-monitoring of attained subgoals in private study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 623–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005). Training of self-regulatory and problem- solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Perels, F., Otto, B., Landmann, M., Hertel, S., & Schmitz, B. (2007). Self-regulation from the process perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 215, 149–204.Google Scholar
  15. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). The motivational strategies for learning questionaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  16. Schiefele, U., & Moschner, B. (1997). Motivationale Orientierungen und Lernstrategien im Studium.[Motivational orientation and learning strategies during college.] Selbstkonzepte, Lernmotivation, Lernstrategien, epistemologische Überzeugungen, Instruktionsqualität und Studienleistung. Längsschnittliche Verläufe und kausale Zusammenhänge. Antrag an die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.Google Scholar
  17. Schmitz, B. (2006). Advantages of studying processes in educational research. Learning and Instruction, 16, 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitz, B., & Skinner, E. (1993). Percieved control, effort, and academic performance: Interindividual, intraindividual, and multivariate time-series analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 64, 1010–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, 64–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1981). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen.[Scales measuring teacher and student characteristics] Freie Universität Berlin: Veröffentlichte Skalendokumentation.Google Scholar
  22. Shapiro, E. S. (1984). Self-monitoring procedures. In T. H. Ollendich & M. Hersen (Eds.), Child behaviour assessment: Principles and procedures (pp. 148–165). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  23. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Webber, J., Scheuermann, B., McCall, C., & Coleman, M. (1993). Research on self-monitoring as a behaviour management technique in special education classrooms: A descriptive review. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wild, K.-P., Schiefele, K., & Winteler, A. (1992). LIST - Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium. [A tool to measure learning strategies during college]. München: Universität der Bundeswehr.Google Scholar
  27. 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). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Reliability and validity of Self-Efficacy for Learning Form (SELF) scores of college students. The Journal of Psychology, 215, 157–163.Google Scholar
  29. Zimmerman, B. J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, D., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners. Washington: American Psychological Ass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology, DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.University of the Saarland, SaarbrückenSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations