Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for evaluating and enhancing alignment in self-regulated learning research

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We discuss the articles of this special issue with reference to an important yet previously only implicit dimension of study quality: alignment across the theoretical and methodological decisions that collectively define an approach to self-regulated learning. Integrating and extending work by leaders in the field, we propose a framework for evaluating alignment in the way self-regulated learning research is both conducted and reported. Within this framework, the special issue articles provide a springboard for discussing methodological considerations of increasingly sophisticated research on the dynamic, contingent, and contextualized features of self-regulated learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An alternative and perhaps more appropriate statistical approach to capture variation in patterns of improvement within this context is factor mixture modeling (Lubke and Muthen 2005). In particular, factor mixture modeling permits the possibility that the marginal fit of the measurement model could be attributed to nonequivalence of the latent structure over time or across subgroups within the sample.

References

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of self- and socially-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 2010–2223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2015). Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9134-6.

  • Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2015). Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9129-8.

  • Bernacki, M. L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Aleven, V. (2014). Examining self-efficacy during learning: variability and relations in behavior, performance, and learning. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9127-x.

  • Binbasaran-Tuysuzoglu, B., & Greene, J. A. (2014). An investigation of the role of contingent metacognitive behavior in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9126-y.

  • Carnegie Learning. (2011). Cognitive Tutor Algebra [computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning, Inc.

  • Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the MARSL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based environments. Educational Psychologist, 45, 203–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Robertson, J., & Costa, L. C. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using think-aloud protocol methods. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 313–328). New York: Routledge Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Dellinger, K., Binbasaran Tuysuzoglu, B., & Costa, L. (2013). A two-tiered approach to analyzing self-regulated learning process data to inform the design of hypermedia learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 117–128). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 477–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtinger, E., & Kaplan, A. (2015). Employing a case study approach to capture motivation and self-regulation of young students with learning disabilities in authentic educational contexts. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9131-1.

  • Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implication of task structure on self-regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubke, G. H., & Muthen, B. O. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg, J., Jarvela, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Elementary school students’ strategic learning: does task-type matter? Metacognition and Learning, 9, 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCardle, L., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Using multiple, contextualized data sources to measure learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9132-0.

  • Molenaar, I., & Jarvela, S. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and socially regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of students’ self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–494). San Diego: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: a review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33-45.

  • Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wampold, B. E., Davis, B., & Good, R. H., III. (1990). Hypothesis validity of clinical research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 360–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences , 8, 327–353.

  • Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2014). Issues in researching self-regulated learning as patterns of events. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 531–565). San Diego: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 750–769). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Journal of International Research, 45, 166–183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

During preparation of this manuscript, the second author was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Grant P30 DA023026. The contents of this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families, and Schools, College of Education and Human Sciences, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 303G Mabel Lee Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0235, USA

    Amy L. Dent

  2. Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Rick H. Hoyle

Authors
  1. Amy L. Dent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rick H. Hoyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy L. Dent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dent, A.L., Hoyle, R.H. A framework for evaluating and enhancing alignment in self-regulated learning research. Metacognition Learning 10, 165–179 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9136-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9136-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation