The study investigated the effects of stimulating self-regulated learning (SRL) in hypermedia to support mathematical literacy of lower achievers students compared to higher-achiever students.
We examined seventh-grade students (n = 64) who were exposed to a self-directed hypermedia environment either supported by SRL with IMPROVE self-questioning (the H_SRL group) or receiving no direct SRL support (the H_NS group). Mathematical literacy was investigated with (a) authentic problem-solving tasks (Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Author, Paris, 2003) and (b) online discussion for SRL processes (cognitive, metacognitive, motivation, and social feedback). Findings indicated that the H_SRL intervention led to more significant gains than the H_NS group in mathematical literacy for students of varying ability levels (lower and higher achievers). In addition, the benefits of H_SRL persisted in online discussion feedback. These effects were particularly beneficial for the lower achievers. This study offers potential contributions to theoretical research examining the role of SRL support in hypermedia for enhancing mathematical literacy and SRL of lower-achiever students.
High Achiever Mathematical Literacy Lower Achiever Online Feedback Cognitive Feedback
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., & Haria, P. (2007). A Comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramarski, B. (2011). Assessing self-regulation developing through sharing feedback in online mathematical problem solving. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICTs (pp. 232–247). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effect of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramarski, B., Weiss, I., & Kololshi-Minsker, I. (2010). How can self-regulated learning (SRL) support problem solving of third-grade students with mathematics anxiety? ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(2), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.Google Scholar
Michalsky, T., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2007). Developing students’ metacognitive awareness in asynchronous learning networks in comparison to face-to-face discussion groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 421–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Programme for International Student Assessment – PISA. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
Programme for International Student Assessment – PISA. (2009). Take the test: Sample questions from OECD’s PISA assessments. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulated learning: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, and applications (pp. 13–39). Orlando: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar