Educational Psychology Review

, 19:401 | Cite as

Students’ Adaptation of Study Strategies When Preparing for Classroom Tests

  • Hein Broekkamp
  • Bernadette H. A. M. Van Hout-Wolters
Original Article


According to theories of students’ test preparation, students may optimize their test performance by paying special attention to important information and processing this information in ways that are appropriate to the type of questions included in the forthcoming test. However, research is unclear about the conditions under which students adapt study strategies to the demands of test preparation tasks. Moreover, little is known about the processes and abilities involved. In this article, we present a theoretical model that integrates various factors that seem relevant to strategy adaptation in test preparation, including the teacher’s intended task demands, students’ perceptions of these demands, students’ personal goals for studying, and their ability to adapt and implement strategies. The aim of our model is to stimulate further research on strategy adaptation, which may eventually provide evidence-based guidelines that could help teachers support the development of students’ strategy adaptability and use tests as learning tools.


Text studying Test preparation Learning strategies Self-regulated learning Classroom assessment 


  1. Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 189–194.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multistage, multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 273–298). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89–121.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 3 (pp. 285–310). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 2 (pp. 951–983). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory into Practice, 41, 255–261.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, R. C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 9 (pp. 89–132). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Studying. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 657–679). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  10. Ball, D. W., Ross, A. R., & Dewalt, M. W. (1986). Level of teacher objectives and their classroom tests: Match or mismatch. Journal of Social Studies Research, 10, 27–31.Google Scholar
  11. Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 410–433.Google Scholar
  12. Battig, W. F. (1979). Are the important ‘individual differences’ between or within individuals? Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 546–558.Google Scholar
  13. Bender, W., & Davis, R. A. (1949). What high school students think about teacher-made examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 43, 58–65.Google Scholar
  14. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.Google Scholar
  15. Boekaerts, M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: Initiating and maintaining behavioural change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 377–397.Google Scholar
  16. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.Google Scholar
  17. Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145–164.Google Scholar
  18. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324–336.Google Scholar
  19. Broekkamp, H. (2003). Task demands and test expectations: Theory and empirical research on students’ preparation for a teacher-made test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Berg, H. (2002). Importance in instructional text: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of task demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 260–271.Google Scholar
  21. Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004a). Students’ expectations about the processing demands of teacher-made tests. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 281–304.Google Scholar
  22. Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004b). Teachers’ task demands, students’ test expectations and actual test content. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 205–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161–180.Google Scholar
  24. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 1–14.Google Scholar
  25. Butler, D. L. (1998a). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 277–307). San Diego, California: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Butler, D. L. (1998b). The Strategic Content Learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697.Google Scholar
  27. Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting effective task interpretation as an important work habit: A key to successful teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1729–1758.Google Scholar
  28. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning—A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.Google Scholar
  29. Cantwell, R. H., & Moore, P. J. (1996). The development of measures of individual differences in self-regulatory control and their relationship to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 500–517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Carrier, C. A., & Fautsch-Partridge, T. (1981). Levels of questions: A framework for the exploration of processing activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 365–382.Google Scholar
  31. Cordón, L. A., & Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 288–295.Google Scholar
  32. Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333–346.Google Scholar
  33. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.Google Scholar
  34. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.Google Scholar
  35. De Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 33–43). Oxford (England): Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.Google Scholar
  37. Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 486–515). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  38. Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (1990). Cognitive processes in textbook chapter search tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 323–339.Google Scholar
  39. d’Ydewalle, G., & Roselle, H. (1978). Test expectations in text learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 609–617). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Dyne, A. M., Taylor, P. G., & Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1994). Information processing and the learning context: An analysis from recent perspectives in cognitive psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 359–372.Google Scholar
  41. Elshout-Mohr, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Broekkamp, H. (1999). Mapping situations in classroom and research: Eight types of instructional-learning episodes. Learning and Instruction, 9, 57–75.Google Scholar
  42. Entwistle, N. J. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions: The case of the disappearing relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 14, 155–156.Google Scholar
  43. Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465–485). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  44. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychology Review, 87, 215–251.Google Scholar
  45. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.Google Scholar
  46. Feldt, R. C. (1990). Test expectancy and performance on factual and higher-level questions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 212–223.Google Scholar
  47. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.Google Scholar
  48. Frazier, D. W. (1993). Transfer of college developmental reading students’ textmarking strategies. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 25, 17–41.Google Scholar
  49. Fredricksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39, 193–202.Google Scholar
  50. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517–529.Google Scholar
  51. Gehrke, N. J., Knapp, M. S., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 18, 51–110.Google Scholar
  52. Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education (pp. 41–55). Buckingham (England): SRHE.Google Scholar
  53. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.Google Scholar
  55. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 179–222.Google Scholar
  56. Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 692–715.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. Hakstian, A. R. (1971). The effects of type of examination anticipated on test preparation and performance. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 319–324.Google Scholar
  59. Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.Google Scholar
  60. Hidi, S. E. (1995). A reexamination of the role of attention in learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 323–350.Google Scholar
  61. Hodgson, V. (1997). Lectures and the experience of relevance. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 159–171). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic.Google Scholar
  62. Jamieson-Noel, D., & Winne P. H. (2003). Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations of students’ studying and achievement. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 159–171.Google Scholar
  63. Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290–309.Google Scholar
  64. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.Google Scholar
  65. Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245–255.Google Scholar
  66. Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.Google Scholar
  67. Lorch, R. F. Jr. (1989). Text signalling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.Google Scholar
  68. Lundeberg, M. A., & Fox, P. W. (1991). Do laboratory findings on test expectancy generalize to classroom outcomes? Review of Educational Research, 61, 94–106.Google Scholar
  69. Luwel, K., Lemaire, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Children’s strategies in numerosity judgment. Cognitive Development, 20, 448–471.Google Scholar
  70. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.Google Scholar
  71. Mayer, R. E. (1987). Instructional variables that influence cognitive processing during reading. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive Control Processes in Reading (pp. 201–216). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  72. McConkie, G. W. (1977). Learning from text. Review of Research in Education, 5, 3–48.Google Scholar
  73. McDaniel., M., & Einstein, G. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: A contextuallist approach to reading and study strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 113–146.Google Scholar
  74. Miller, C. M. L., & Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the mark: A study of the examination game. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  75. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  76. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 519–533.Google Scholar
  77. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–26). Washington, District of Columbia: MIT.Google Scholar
  78. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  79. Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (2000). College studying. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 3 (pp. 645–666). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Nolen, S. B. (1996). Why study? How reasons for learning influence strategy selection. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 335–355.Google Scholar
  81. Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116–130.Google Scholar
  82. Nuthall, G., & Altonlee, A. (1995). Assessing classroom learning—How students use their knowledge and experience to answer classroom achievement-test questions in science and social-studies. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 185–223.Google Scholar
  83. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.Google Scholar
  84. Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Van Meter, P., Van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology Review, 9, 1–38.Google Scholar
  85. Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy—Situational influences on learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles: Perspectives on individual learning differences (pp. 159–184). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  86. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368–383.Google Scholar
  88. Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345–391.Google Scholar
  89. Schellings, G. L. M., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1995). Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and by their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 742–757.Google Scholar
  90. Schellings, G. L. M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Vermunt, J. D. (1996a). Individual differences in adapting to three different tasks of selecting information from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 423–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Schellings, G. L. M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Vermunt, J. D. (1996b). Selection of main points in instructional texts: Influences of task demands. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 355–378.Google Scholar
  92. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–319.Google Scholar
  93. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 211–224.Google Scholar
  94. Schraw, G., Wade, S. E., & Kardash, C. A. M. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 652–661.Google Scholar
  95. Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (1998). Strategy adaptivity and individual differences. In D. L Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 38 (pp. 115–154). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  96. Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Another source of individual differences: Strategy adaptivity to changing rates of success. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 59–76.Google Scholar
  97. Schunn, C. D., Lovett, M. C., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Awareness and working memory in strategy adaptivity. Memory and Cognition, 29, 254–266.Google Scholar
  98. Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.Google Scholar
  99. Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1997). Perspectives on learning history: A case study. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 363–395.Google Scholar
  100. Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 528–541.Google Scholar
  101. Snyder, B. L. (1988). What do adults do when studying for a test with unpredictable questions? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
  102. Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  103. Tang, C. (1992). Perceptions of task demands, strategy attributions and student learning. Higher Educational Research & Development, 15, 474–481.Google Scholar
  104. Thomas, J. W. (1988). Proficiency at academic studying. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 265–275.Google Scholar
  105. Thomas, J. W., Bol, L., Warkentin, R. W., Wilson, M., Strage, A., & Rowher, W. D. (1993). Interrelationships among students study activities, self-concept of academic ability, and achievement as a function of characteristics of high-school biology courses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 499–532.Google Scholar
  106. Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1986). Academic studying: The role of study strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 19–41.Google Scholar
  107. Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences in academic studying: Summary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 381–385.Google Scholar
  108. Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1993a). Proficient autonomous learning: Problems and prospects. In M. Rabinovitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 1–32). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  109. Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1993b). Studying across the life span. In S. R. Yussen & M. C. Smith (Eds.), Reading Across the Life Span (pp. 241–272). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  110. Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessments. Human Learning, 3, 327–340.Google Scholar
  111. VanderStoep, S. W., Pintrich, P. R., & Fagerlin, A. (1996). Disciplinary differences in self-regulated learning in college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 345–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Van Etten, S., Freebern, G., & Pressley, M. (1997). College students’ beliefs about exam preparation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 112-192.Google Scholar
  114. Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1990). Teachers’ selection of key phrases in instructional texts. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference (NRC), Miami, USA.Google Scholar
  115. Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1997). Teachers’ selection of key phrases in instructional texts. School Field, 6, 51–62.Google Scholar
  116. Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2000). Assessing active self-directed learning. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 19–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  117. Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338.Google Scholar
  118. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategieën und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster (Germany): Waxmann.Google Scholar
  119. Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14, 621–640.Google Scholar
  120. Vermetten, Y., Lodewijks, H., & Vermunt, J. (1997). Consistency and variability of learning strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1–21.Google Scholar
  121. Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 147–166.Google Scholar
  122. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  123. Wilson, M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525–539.Google Scholar
  124. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  125. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2003). Self-regulating studying by objectives for learning: Students’ reports compared to a model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 259–276.Google Scholar
  126. Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementary School Journal, 82, 493–518.Google Scholar
  127. Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D. L., & Muis, K. (2002). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), New directions in measurement and methods Vol. 12 (pp. 121–155). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.Google Scholar
  128. Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., & LeMare, L. (1982). The effects of knowledge of criterion task on comprehension and recall in normally achieving and disabled children. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 119–126.Google Scholar
  129. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulated perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86.Google Scholar
  130. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hein Broekkamp
    • 1
  • Bernadette H. A. M. Van Hout-Wolters
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Teaching and LearningUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations