daniel c. moos, phd amanda miller (elementary teacher)

Daniel C. Moos, PhD

Amanda Miller (Elementary Teacher)

The Self-Regulated Learning Cycle with Hypermedia: Stable Between Tasks?

Overview

• Introduction• Context• Theoretical Frameworks• Rationale of study

• Overview of Study• Method & procedure• Results • Discussion: Theoretical & Methodological implications

• AcknowledgementsDaniel C. Moos, PhD

Department of EducationGustavus Adolphus College

AERA 2013

Context: Hypermedia Learning

Daniel C. Moos, PhDDepartment of Education

Gustavus Adolphus CollegeAERA 2013

Non-linear

Multiple Representations

Theoretical Frameworks (I)Social Cogntive Approach (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000) )

Theoretical Frameworks (II)Information and Processing Approach (Winne & Hadwin,1998)

Pintrich (2000)

Theoretical Frameworks (III)

PHASES

Cognition Motivation Behavior Context

Planning

Monitoring

Control

Reaction &Reflection

Prior knowledge activationMetacognitive monitoringSelection of strategies

Task interest

Strategy selection for managing motivation

Time and effort planningMonitoring of time, effort

Perception of task/contextMonitoring changing context

Evaluate task/context

AREAS

Monitoring of motivation

Cognitive judgments

Affective reactions

Behavioral strategies, such as help-seekingBehavioral reflection

Contextual choices

Theoretical Frameworks (IV)

• Different models, shared assumptions:1. Idiosyncratic goals are constructed; self-

regulated learning is a proactive, constructive process

2. Cognition, behavior, and motivation can be potentially monitored and regulated

3. Behavior is goal-directed and can be modified to achieve a desired goal

“Dynamic”; “Event”; “Recursive”Empirical support for theoretical assumptionsDifferences between and within learners

“Knowledge acquisition” (Moos & Azevedo, 2008)

“Knowledge verification” (Moos & Azevedo, 2008)

Rationale• SRL highly predictive of learning outcomes in variety of

contexts with various developmental groups (Bembenutty, 2011; Butler, Cartier, Schnellert, 2011; Cleary & Sandars, 2011; Cleary & Platten, 2013; DiBenedetto & Bembenutty, 2013; McPherson & Renwick, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013);

particularly with hypermedia (Azevedo et al. 2012; Greene et al. 2013; Moos & Stewart, 2013)

• Differences between students’ SRL and individual changes within learning tasks

• Stability of SRL processes across tasks for individual students?

Research Questions

Daniel C. Moos, PhDDepartment of Education

Gustavus Adolphus CollegeAERA 2013

To what extent are variables from the forethought phase (motivation constructs) stable across learning tasks?

To what extent are variables from the other phases (planning, monitoring, and learning strategies) stable across learning tasks?

To what extent do SRL processes from the forethought phase predict SRL processes from other phases?

Participants & Measures• Participants (N = 37)

• Pre-service teachers from a Midwest college• 32 females (86%) and 5 females (14%)

• Measures • Mental Model Essays (Azevedo & Cromley, 2005; Chi, 2005): Prior

domain knowledge and learning outcomes for two topics • Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ;

Pintrich et al., 1991): Self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task value, control beliefs

• Concurrent Think-Aloud protocol (Ericsson, 2006): SRL during learning (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001)

Pretest Posttest

Walkthrough& Directions

Hypermedia(Circulatory/

Constructivism)

Procedure for each learning task• Participants individually run

• Each participant completed two learning task (order counterbalanced)

Data

Prior Knowledge

SRL Learning Outcomes

MSLQ

Motivation

Procedure

Results (I)

Expectancy X Value (Eccles & Wigfield, 20002)

Results (II)

Discussion

• Changes in learning task content can affect first phase of SRL (motivation)

• Do changes in the first phase affect subsequent SRL phases?

Maybe, Maybe Not

Discussion

IPT(Winne & Hadwin,

1995)

Pintrich 4x4(Pintrich, 2000)

Social Cognitive

(Schunk & Zimmerman,

2013)

MASRL model

(Efklides, 2011)

Cognitive conditions(Beliefs and Attributions)

Planning phase of

motivation (Task Value)

Reciprocal Causation

(Self-efficacy)

Person level & Task ×

Person level (Achievement

Goals)

• Role of Individualized Feedback that accounts for the dynamic nature of SRL: “Skill” (capacity) and “Will” (motivation)

• What factors affect the dynamic relationship between phases?• Are there more stable, trait-like SRL processes?

Limitations & Future Directions

• Methodological challenges: Triangulating with multiple measures and using combination methods (e.g., SRL microanalysis; Cleary, Callan, & Zimmerman, 2012)

• Longitudinal data: Some SRL processes change over longer periods of time

• Developmental and/or knowledge factors

• Sample size

Acknowledgments:

Maria DiBenedetto

Drs. Bembenutty, Butler, Cleary, Schnellert, Schunk, MchPherson Greg Callan and Amanda Miller

Contact Information:

Email: dmoos@gustavus.edu

Website: homepages.gac.edu/~dmoos