Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 629–648 | Cite as

Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback

  • Hyeon Woo LeeEmail author
  • Kyu Yon Lim
  • Barbara L. Grabowski
Research Article


Comprehension of science topics occurs when learners meaningfully generate relationships and conceptions about what they read. In this generation process, learners’ cognitive and metacognitive regulation is one of the most critical factors influencing learning. However, learners are not always successful in regulating their own learning, especially in computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) where they are alone. Based on this rationale, the present study was designed to examine the effects of two scaffolding strategies—generative learning strategy prompts and metacognitive feedback—on learners’ comprehension and self-regulation while learning the human heart system in a CBLE. Participants were 223 undergraduate student volunteers. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to conceptualize and empirically test a model that explains mediating processes among variables. Results revealed that the combination of generative learning strategy prompts with metacognitive feedback improved learners’ recall and comprehension by enhancing learners’ self-regulation and better use of highlighting and summarizing as generative learning strategies.


Generative learning strategy Self-regulation Metacognitive feedback Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 


  1. Aiken, L. S., Stein, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Structural equation analysis of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment groups: Characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 488–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Toward computer-based tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial intelligence in Education, 16, 101–130.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training of self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004a). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azevedo, R., Cuthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004b). The role of self-regulated learning in forstering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  7. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barab, S. A., Young, M. F., & Wang, J. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3), 283–309.Google Scholar
  9. Barnett, J. E., DiVesta, F. J., & Rogonzenski, L. T. (1981). What is learned in notetaking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Dabbach, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33, 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, M., & Hult, R. E. (1997). Effects of writing summaries as a generative learning activity during note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 24(1), 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. B. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, PA: Learning Services.Google Scholar
  16. Dwyer, F. M., & Lamberski, R. J. (1977). The human heart: Parts of the heart, circulation of blood and cycle of blood pressure. Lecture handouts, Dept. Learning and Performance Systems, Pennsylvania State Univ., Lehman, PA.Google Scholar
  17. Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the learning sciences, 15(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 57–85). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, J. W., & Dempsey, J. V. (1993). Simulation and gaming: Fidelity, feedback, and motivation. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Jöreskog, K. G., & Shörbom, D. (1984). Lisrel vi: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods (3rd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.Google Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research, 94, 292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kühnel, S. M. (1988). Testing MANOVA designs with LISREL. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(4), 504–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2008). Generative learning: Principles and implications for making meaning. In J. Spector, D. M. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research and educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  30. Mevarech, Z., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of improve on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning task. In J. Spector, D. M. Merril, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technologies (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  32. Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Educational assessment of students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pintrich, P. R., David, A. F. S., Teresa, G., & Wilbert, J. M. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Technical report No. 91-B-004.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rickards, J. P. (1979). Adjunct post-questions in text: A critical review of methods and processes. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 181–196.Google Scholar
  38. Rickards, J. P., & August, G. J. (1975). Generative underlining strategies in prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors on covariance structure analysis. In A. V. Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359–382.Google Scholar
  41. Shapiro, A. M. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shrager, L., & Mayer, R. E. (1989). Note-taking fosters generative learning strategies in novices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 263–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Busato, V. V. (1994). Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., & Pintrich, P. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148–185). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winne, P. H., Nesbit, J. C., Kumar, V., Hadwin, A. F., Lajoie, S. P., Azevedo, R., et al. (2006). Supporting self-regulated learning with gstudy software: The learning kit project. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3, 105–113.Google Scholar
  47. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. Elementary School Journal, 92, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wittrock, M. C., & Carter, J. (1975). Generative processing of hierarchically organized words. American Journal of Psychology, 88(3), 489–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 Press.Google Scholar
  53. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In P. R. P. Boekaerts & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–41). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyeon Woo Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kyu Yon Lim
    • 2
  • Barbara L. Grabowski
    • 3
  1. 1.Sangmyung UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Ajou UniversitySuwonKorea
  3. 3.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations