Self-Regulated Learning Cycle with Hypermedia: A Study by Daniel C. Moos

The Self-Regulated Learning Cycle with Hypermedia: Stable Between Tasks? Daniel C. Moos, PhD Amanda Miller (Elementary Teacher)

Overview Introduction Context Theoretical Frameworks Rationale of study Overview of Study Method & procedure Results Discussion: Theoretical & Methodological implications Acknowledgements Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013

Context: Hypermedia Learning Non-linear Multiple Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013 Representations

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

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

Theoretical Frameworks(III) Pintrich (2000) Cognition Motivation Behavior Context AREAS PHASES Planning Prior knowledge activation Time and effort planning Perception of task/context Task interest Monitoring Monitoring of motivation Monitoring changing context Metacognitive monitoring Monitoring of time, effort Strategy selection for managing motivation Behavioral strategies, such as help-seeking Selection of strategies Control Contextual choices Reaction & Reflection Behavioral reflection Cognitive judgments Affective reactions Evaluate task/context

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 assumptions Differences 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 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? Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013

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)

Procedure Procedure for each learning task Participants individually run Each participant completed two learning task (order counterbalanced) Walkthrough & Directions Hypermedia (Circulatory/ Constructivism) Pretest MSLQ Posttest Data Prior Motivation Learning Outcomes SRL Knowledge

Results (I) Learning Task Motivation Variable Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Task Value Control Beliefs Self-Efficacy Circulatory System Constructivism 5.20 3.87 5.76 4.89 4.97 4.92 3.70 4.27 4.69 4.51 Expectancy X Value (Eccles & Wigfield, 20002)

Results (II) Learning Task SRLProcess Circulatory System Constructivism 1.68 5.46 15.22 Planning Monitoring Learning Strategies 1.08 4.65 13.11

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 Pintrich 4x4 (Pintrich, 2000) Social Cognitive (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013) Reciprocal Causation (Self-efficacy) MASRL model (Efklides, 2011) (Winne & Hadwin, 1995) Cognitive conditions (Beliefs and Attributions) Planning phase of motivation (Task Value) 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