Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 157–191 | Cite as

Promoting preservice teachers’ dual self-regulation roles as learners and as teachers: effects of generic vs. specific prompts

Article

Abstract

Researchers have recently suggested that teachers must undertake important dual self- regulation roles if they want to become effective at improving their students’ self-regulation. First, teachers need to become proficient at self-regulated learning (SRL) themselves, and then teachers need to learn explicitly how to proactively teach SRL – termed self-regulating teaching (SRT). Considering that both roles are difficult to attain by novice teachers, supports (prompts) are essential. We examined an intervention comparing the usefulness of two prompting conditions – generic versus specific – for developing both SRL (as learners) and SRT (as teachers) among 90 preservice science teachers engaging in explicit self-regulation instruction and reflective group discussion about learning/teaching experiences (observed learning clips, in-action teaching). We compared the two group conditions by using two SRL assessments and two SRT assessments. Mixed methods indicated that, as expected, the specific-prompts condition outperformed the generic-prompts condition on self-awareness of own SRL, skills for accurately noticing authentic videotaped students’ SRL, and explicit usage of SRT during actual teaching experiences. As expected, no differences emerged between generic and specific prompts in applying SRT to a novel lesson-design task (far-transfer measure). These findings, supported by two case studies’ sequential pattern analysis, offered an important contribution to theoretical and practical understanding of novice teachers’ self-regulation prompting approaches, practice modes, and multidimensional assessments of teachers’ professional development.

Keywords

Dual learner/teacher role in SRL Generic/specific prompts Mixed-methods analysis Lesson design (transfer) Preservice teachers 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

References

  1. Aleven, V., Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006). Supporting self-explanation of argument transcripts: Specific vs. generic prompts. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~hypoform/ITS06_illdefinedworkshop_AlevenEtAl.pdf .
  2. Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of self- and socially-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods (pp. 93–114). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bembenutty, H. (2013). The triumph of homework completion through learning academy of self-regulation. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines (pp. 153–197). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., Walck, C., & Nunnery, J. (2012). The effect of individual or group guidelines on the calibration accuracy and achievement of high school biology students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 280–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self directed lifelong learning: a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, D. L., Novak Lauscher, H. J., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzza, D., & Allinotte, T. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ self-regulated learning and their developing concepts of SRL. Brock Education, 23(1), 58–76.Google Scholar
  10. Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Regression analysis of count data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., & Privman, M. (2005). Viewing comprehension: students’ learning preferences and strategies when studying from video. Instructional Science, 33, 31–47. doi: 10.1007/s11251-004-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: a school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleary, T. J., Callan, G., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Education Research International. doi: 10.1155/2012/428639.Google Scholar
  14. Craig, S., Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring videos while problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 779–789. doi: 10.1037/a0016601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers: seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough: future teachers also need to learn how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23–35.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, S. C., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. (2007). Do teachers’ own learning behaviors influence their classroom goal orientation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 1–9.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, J. A., Costa, L.-J., & Dellinger, K. (2011). Analysis of self-regulated learning processing using statistical models for count data. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 275–301. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9078-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hattie, J. A. C., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145e199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kauffman, D. F., Ge, X., Xie, K., & Chen, C. H. (2008). Prompting in web-based environments: supporting self-monitoring and problem solving skills in college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Buttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21, 94–102.Google Scholar
  30. Kohen, Z., & Kramarski, B. (2012). Developing self-regulation by using reflective support in a video-digital microteaching environment. Journal for Education Research International. doi: 10.1155/2012/105246.Google Scholar
  31. Kohen, Z., & Kramarski, B. (2016). Promoting mathematics teachers’ pedagogical metacognition: A theoretical-practical model and case study. In J. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  32. Kramarski, B. (2008). Promoting teachers’ algebraic reasoning and self-regulation with metacognitive guidance. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramarski, B. (2016). Teachers as agents in promoting students’ SRL and performance: Applications for teachers’ dual-role training program. In J. Greene & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.).Google Scholar
  34. Kramarski, B., & Kohen, Z. (2015). Promoting the dual roles of teachers as self-regulated learners and self-regulated teachers. Paper presented at the AERA Conference, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating pre-service teachers’ professional growth in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20, 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kramarski, B., & Revach, T. (2009). The challenge of self-regulated learning in mathematics teachers’ professional training. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kramarski, B., Desoete, A., Bannert, M., Narciss, S., & Perry, N. (2013a). New perspectives on integrating self-regulated learning at school [Special issue]. Education Research International, 498214, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kramarski, B., Weiss, I., & Sharon, S. (2013b). Generic versus context-specific prompts for supporting self-regulation in mathematical problem solving among students with low or high prior knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(2), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of YouTube: the role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson planning with technology. Computers & Education, 58, 1194–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Assessing middle school students’ content knowledge and reasoning through written scientific explanations. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 101–116). Arlington: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: a multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Critical maths for innovative societies: The role of metacognitive pedagogies. Paris: OECD. doi: 10.1787/9789264223561-en.
  44. Michalsky, T., & Kramarski, B. (2015). Prompting reflections for integrating self-regulation into teacher technology education. Teachers College Record, 117(5), 1–38.Google Scholar
  45. Molenaar, I., & Järvelä, S. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and socially regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 75–85. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9114-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muldner, K., Lam, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Learning from observing an expert’s demonstration, explanations and dialogues. In J. J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: The impact of William G. Chase (pp. 1–28). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles for teacher preparation [Commissioned Paper]. Preparing teachers to use contextual teaching and learning strategies to improve student success in and beyond school project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  49. Peeters, E., Backer, F. D., Reina, V. R., Kindekens, A., & Buffel, T. (2013). The role of teachers’ self-regulatory capacities in the implementation of self-regulated learning practices. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(21), 1963–1970. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia.Google Scholar
  50. Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated learning: scaffolding student teachers’ development and use of practices that promote self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 1825–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). Orlando: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saldana, J. (2015). Thinking quality: Methods of mind. Los Angeles: Arizona University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(1), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its education applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting generic prompts metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2014). Teacher belief, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(2), 245–277. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9124-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. van Beek, J. A., de Jong, F. P. C. M., Minnaer, A. E. M. G., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Teacher practice in secondary vocational education: between teacher-regulated activities of student learning and student self-regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Es, E., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596.Google Scholar
  69. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu, L., & Looi, C.-K. (2012). Agent prompts: scaffolding for productive reflection in an intelligent learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 339–353.Google Scholar
  72. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 331–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations