Self-regulation of secondary school students: self-assessments are inaccurate and insufficiently used for learning-task selection

Instructional Science - Tập 46 - Trang 357-381 - 2018
Michelle L. Nugteren1,2, Halszka Jarodzka1,3, Liesbeth Kester1,2, Jeroen J. G. Van Merriënboer1,4
1Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Welten Institute Research Center for Learning, Teaching and Technology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands
2Department of Education and Pedagogy – Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
3Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
4Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Self-assessment and task selection are important self-regulated learning skills for secondary school students. More specifically, selecting new tasks based on self-assessments is very important for them, because teachers are not always present or able to select tasks for them individually. However, little is known about the processes underlying these self-regulated learning skills, and thus no guidelines exist for teaching self-assessment and the selection of subsequent learning-tasks. We propose a model for self-regulated learning-task selection (SRLTS) which represents a possible pathway for the task-selection process, and which students could use as a norm when making task selections. The model could help students to decide what possible new tasks might be suitable for their current skill level, based on self-assessments. The aim of this study is to evaluate to what extent secondary school students select learning tasks according to this model, and whether they use self-assessments to this end. Secondary school students (N = 15) selected learning tasks in the domain of genetics from a structured task database. The tasks varied in difficulty and amount of support provided (i.e., completion problems vs. traditional problems). We used eye tracking, performance estimates, estimates of mental effort, judgments of learning, and open questions to gain more insight in what students focus on and think about when selecting a task. Results suggest that students roughly follow the SRLTS model, but they base their decisions on inaccurate self-assessments. This implies that students might benefit from self-assessment and task-selection advice, which could provide feedback on self-assessments and stimulate students to use self-assessment information as input for task selection in the way the model prescribes to optimize their learning.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. NERA Conference Proceedings, 2010, 25. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801928. Baars, M., Vink, S., Van Gog, T., De Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.004. Baars, M., Visser, S., Van Gog, T., De Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2013). Completion of partially worked-out examples as a generation strategy for improving monitoring accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.09.001. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138746. Brown, G. T. L., Andrade, H. L., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22, 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learning Research, 2, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i1.24. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245. Camp, G., Paas, F., Rikers, R., & Van Merrienboer, J. (2001). Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: a comparison between performance, mental effort and mental efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00028-0. Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56, 236–246. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.003. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009a). Combining shared control with variability over surface features: Effects on transfer test performance and task involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.009. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009b). Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.002. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). Learner-controlled selection of tasks with different surface and structural features: Effects on transfer and efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.026. De Bruin, A., & Van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2011). Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16, 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9263-2goldberg, J. H., & Wichansky, A. M. (2003). Eye tracking in usability evaluation: A practioner’s guide. In Hyönä, J., Radach, R., & Deubel, H. (Eds.), The mind’s eyes: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 493–516). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Istance, D., & Dumont, H. (2010). Future directions for learning environments in the 21st century. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 317–338). Paris, France: OECD, Centre for Research and Educational Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-15-en. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4. Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Slot, W. (2009). The effects of portfolio-based advice on the development of self-directed learning skills in secondary vocational education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9111-3. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349. Kostons, D., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Self-assessment and task selection in learner-controlled instruction: Differences between effective and ineffective learners. Computers & Education, 54, 932–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.025. Kostons, D., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.004. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.174. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1. Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122. Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Pscyhology, 11, 551–576. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12200. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205. Taminiau, E. M., Kester, L., Corbalan, G., Alessi, S. M., Moxnes, E., Gijselaers, W. H., et al. (2013). Why advice on task selection may hamper learning in on-demand education. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.028. Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., Lai, M. L., Liu, W. Y., & Yang, F. Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58, 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.012. Van Gog, T., Kostons, D., & Paas, F. (2010). Teaching students self-assessment and task-selection skills with video-based modeling examples. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 296–301). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (2 nd (Rev ed.). New York: Routledge. Wiebe, E. N., Minogue, J., Jones, M. G., Cowley, J., & Krebs, D. (2009). Haptic feedback and students’ learning about levers: Unraveling the effect of simulated touch. Computers & Education, 53, 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.004. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.012. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, 93, 27–30. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2. Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262). New York: Cambridge University Press.