Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 43–75 | Cite as

Using multiple, contextualized data sources to measure learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning

  • Lindsay McCardleEmail author
  • Allyson F. Hadwin
Article

Abstract

As theory and research in self-regulated learning (SRL) advance, debate continues about how to measure SRL as strategic, fine-grained, dynamic adaptations learners make during and between study sessions. Recognizing learners’ perceptions are critical to the strategic adaptations they make during studying, this research examined the unique contributions of self-report data for understanding regulation as it develops over time. Data included (a) scores on the Regulation of Learning Questionnaire (RLQ) completed in the first and last few weeks of a 13-week course and (b) diary-like Weekly Reflections completed over 11 weeks. Participants were 263 undergraduate students in a course about SRL. First, exploratory factor analysis resulted in a five-factor model of the RLQ with factors labeled Task Understanding, Goal Setting, Monitoring, Evaluating, and Adapting. Second, latent class analysis of Time 1 and 2 RLQ scores revealed four classes: emergent regulators, moderate regulators, high regulators with emergent adapting, and high regulators. Finally, in-depth qualitative analysis of Weekly Reflections resulted in group SRL profiles based on a sub-sample of participants from each RLQ class. Qualitatively, these groups were labeled: unengaged regulators, active regulators, struggling regulators, and emergent regulators. Quantitative and qualitative SRL profiles were juxtaposed and similarities and differences discussed. This paper explicates and discusses the critical importance of sampling self-reports of SRL over time and tasks particularly in contexts where regulation is developing.

Keywords

Self-regulated learning Self-report data Metacognition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Standard Research Grant 410-2008-0700 (PI: Hadwin) and Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship. We would like to acknowledge (a) invaluable consultation and assistance from Drs. Scott Hofer and Philip Winne, (b) qualitative coding assistance by Adrianna Haffey, and (c) thorough feedback from the special issue editors and anonymous reviewers on drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. A., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Self-regulated learning in academic domains. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 393–407). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Introduction to special issue: scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 331, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Harley, J., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Bouchet, F., & Landis, R. (2013). Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi-agent systems. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 427–449). Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Johnson, A. M., & Chaucey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2010.515934.
  6. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bliss, L. B., & Mueller, R. J. (1993). An instrument for the assessment of study behaviors of college students. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Education, 30(4), 195–200.Google Scholar
  9. Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1(2), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boekaerts, M. (2006). Self-regulation and effort investment. In E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in practice, Vol. 4, pp. 345–377). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 417–451). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, D. L. (2002). Qualitative approaches to investigating self-regulated learning: contributions and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 59–63. doi: 10.1207/00461520252828564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Cleary, T. (2011). Emergence of self-regulated learning microanalysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 329–345). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Cleary, T. J., & Chen, P. P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: variations across grade level and math context. Journal of School Psychology, 47(5), 291–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.002
  17. Dunn, K. M., Jordan, K. P., & Croft, P. R. (2010). Recall of medication use, self-care activities and pain intensity: a comparison of daily diaries and self-report questionnaires among low back pain patients. Primary Health Care Research and Development, 11, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372. doi: 10.3102/003465430303953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J. A., Robertson, J., & Costa, L.-J. C. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using think-aloud methods. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 313–328). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hadwin, A. F. (2009). Strategic Learning Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument.Google Scholar
  22. Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hadwin, A. F., Boutara, L., Knoetzke, T., & Thompson, S. (2004). Cross-case study of self-regulated learning as a series of events. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 365–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 107–124. doi: 10.1007/s11409-007-9016-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  26. Koning, I. M., Harakeh, Z., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2010). A comparison of self-reported alcohol use measures by early adolescents: Questionnaires versus diary. Journal of Substance Use, 15, 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCardle, L., Webster, E. A., Hadwin, A. F. (2012). Supporting students in setting effective goals for self-regulated learning: Does a tool for weekly self-monitoring help? Paper presented at the International Conference on Motivation, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
  28. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.Google Scholar
  29. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus (version 6) [computer software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the “delayed-JOL effect”. Psychological Science, 4, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. doi: 10.1080/10705510701575396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: what we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perry, N. E. (2002). Introduction: using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1207/00461520252828500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pintrich, P. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation: Terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1017.
  37. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.Google Scholar
  39. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  41. Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: a review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 270–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rotgans, J. I.,  & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: A measure for students’ general motivational beliefs and learning strategies? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19, 357–369.Google Scholar
  43. Schmitz, B., Klug, J., & Schmidt, M. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using diary measures with university students. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 251–266). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172.Google Scholar
  45. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.Google Scholar
  46. Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). The learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater: H & H Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, R. H., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1996). Are simple gain scores obsolete? Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 59–69. doi: 10.1177/014662169602000106
  48. Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153–189). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2010.517150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-Regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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). Orlando: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Muis, K. R. (2002). In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: New directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 121–155). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  57. Winne, P. H., Zhou, M., & Egan, R. (2011). Designing assessments of self-regulated learning. In G. Shraw & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 89–118). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  58. Yang, Y., & Bliss, L. B. (2014). A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students’ study behaviours. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 20, 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 749–768). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.81.3.329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Leadership StudiesUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations