Metacognitive instructional strategies: a study of e-learners self-regulation

Liliana Cuesta MedinaLecturer-Researcher

Department of Foreign Languages and CulturesUniversidad de La Sabana

Selected Plenary CALL conference “Motivation and Beyond”

Antwerp, Belgium August 20, 2010

Overview

• Background• Literature review• Methodology• Results• Conclusions

The complete paper accompanying this plenary can be found in Cuesta, L (2010). (forthcoming). Self-regulation of online graduate learners through metacognitive instructional strategies.

Rationale

• Behind “the study”. My own motivations...

• Search for instructional models to use technology as a toolaccess,deliver knowledge

• Strategies to foster learner autonomy(Palloff & Pratt, 2001; Salmon, 2002; Hauck, M. ,2005; Warschauer, 2006; Reinders and Lázaro, 2008).

Rationale

• F2F and virtual scenarios. What to do? What to adjust? (Hampel & Stickler, 2005).

• Where to go?: Warschauer (2004): new literacies, new genres, identities, pedagogies?

• New tendencies: Virtual action learning (VAL) (Dickenson, Pedler, & Burgoyne, 2008, 2009), networked learning (Salmon, 2000), connectivism (Siemens, 2005), and virtual group working (McConnell, 2006).

This implies...

• Learning by makinglearning by thinking.

• Metacognition:John H. Flavell (1976), numerous disciplines: psychology, natural sciences, linguistics.

(See Glaser, 1994; Martí, Pozo & Monereo, 1999; Hacker, Dunlosky & Greasser, 1998; Zimmerman, 1989; Mateos, 2001; Argüelles & Nagles, 2007; Campanario, Cuerva, Moya & Otero, 1997; Maturano, Soliveres & Macías, 2002; Oxford, 1990; O'Malley and Chamot, 1988; Chapelle, 2001; Rubin, 2001;Hampel, 2003; Hampel & Hauck, 2004).

Defining Metacognition

Areas: Memory, attention, problem-solving strategies, language learning and learning itself.

Flavell (1976)focused on defining metacognition as the domain and regulation that the individual has over his/her own cognition. He referred to metacognition on one hand, as "the knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them" (p. 232).

Defining the term

"Metacognition" is often simply defined as "thinking about thinking”.

Metacognition refers to: higher order thinkingactive control over the cognitive processesplanning a learning task, monitoring comprehension, and evaluating progress toward the completion of a task.

(Livingston, 1997)

Once in history...Brown (1978) defined metacognition as "the deliberate conscious control of one's own cognitive activity” (p.35). In her later studies, (1981) she elaborated on the features of knowledge and regulation of metacognition, pointing out a major difference between expert and novice learners is the relative control they have over cognitive activity.

Metacognitionintervention?

Scaffolding... Mateos (2001) argues that students should be led to gradual participation through growing competence levels until the instructor sees that they are able to build and progressively better control their own degree of autonomy; a process in which, according to Martí (1999), the activities regulated by the teacher and the gradual self-regulation of the student are modified.

In the study, the intervention held during Weeks 1–8 used explicit instruction (cognitive modeling processes) and guided

practice; Weeks 9-13 used guided, collaborative, and independent practice to implement selected metacognitive

instructional strategies.

All by the teacher

Methods for metacognitive instruction according to the level of autonomy transferred to the learner (Mateos, 2001).

Guided Practice

Shared by teachers and students

Shared by group of students

Ratio of the activity´s control

Explicit Instruction

All by the learner

Cooperative Practice

Independent Practice

To highlight...

The main responsibility for educators is to provide and scaffold guidance that enables students to assume control of their learning.

Metacognition+instruction+

strategy=?For Martí (1999)metacognitive occurrences can be viewed from the perspective of the teacher and the student. Both may differ at some point; what is metacognitive for the teacher may not be so for the student. Modifications of activities are regulated by both teacher and learner (Martí, 1999), and the degree of involvement of each agent directly impacts learner performance.

Metacognitive strategies: Chamot and O'Malley (1995):strategies that frames the thought or knowledge of the process of learning, Kuhn et al. (1988) refer to metacognitive strategies as skills; Wenden (1998) described them as the "general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, guide their learning” (p.519). Hauck “self-management strategies”.

So...

Metacognitive instructional strategies are defined as the conscious processes (represented in actions)that allow teachers to model the learning activities systematically and influence students´ self-regulation.

(Cuesta, 2009)

Self-regulation

It includes knowledge of the task (the whats, whens and as hows of learning) as well as self-knowledge of personal skills, interests and attitudes. Self-regulated learning requires learners to have a solid knowledge of the requirements of the task, as well as of the personal qualities and strategies needed to develop the task (Schunk, 2004, p. 225).

Bandura´s self-regulation proposal

Table 1. Subproccesses of self-regulation Source: Social foundations of thought and action, by Bandura, A. (1986).

Sub-process 1

Self-observation This is a stage similar to self-monitoring. Bandura (1986) considers two important criteria for self-monitoring: regularity and proximity.

“Regularity means observing behaviour on a continual basis instead of intermittently=how often. Proximity means that behaviour is observed close in time of occurrence rather than long afterward”= how soon (Schunk, 2004, p. 67).

Sub-process 2Self-judgmentThis refers to a comparison of present performance level with one´s goal. Self-judgments depend on the type of self-evaluative standards employed, the properties of the goal, and the importance of goal attainment and attributions (Schunk, 2004, p.124).

Sub-process 2

Schunk (1987) states that standards inform, motivate and enhance self-efficacy (understood as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations”(Bandura, 1995, p.2).

Sub-process 3

Self-reactionAccording to Bandura (1986), self-reactions to goal progress motivate behavior, and these reactions can be either positive or negative in nature.

Sub-process 3• Self-motivating incentives may be tangible

outcomes or self-evaluative reactions. • Tangible incentives are granted upon

performance attainment, and they “mobilize the effort to get things done”. E.g. recreational and relaxing free time activities (work breaks or new clothes).

• The power of these two incentive systems (tangible and self-incentives) is determined partially by the degree of personal or external control that the individual may have.

What about VLE?

Ávila and Bosco (2001), a virtual learning environment constitutes the physical space that favours the learning attainment through contents, experiences and pedagogic and communicational processes. Salmon (2000) and Hunter (2002) assert that in a virtual learning environment there is a mutual knowledge-building process taking place (p.96).

MethodologyParticipants• (N = 17) Students of second semester of

the Master in English Teaching-Autonomous Learning Environments at the Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia.

• Aged 25-35 years

Research question

What is the effect of metacognitive instructional strategies in the process of self-regulation of learning of a group of graduate learners in a virtual learning environment?

Design

• Qualitative, exploratory study• Action research• Data analysis followed a sequential

exploratory design strategy and a concurrency triangulation strategy (Creswell, 2003).

Design

Implementation and data collection lasted 13 weeks, with data emerging from 3028 messages posted in a Moodle™ platform, registered through observational protocols, surveys, and questionnaires for later coding.

Design

For each of Bandura’s stages (1986), a specific method of instruction (derived from Mateos, 2001) was proposed and used along with a series of metacognitive strategies proposed by Cuesta (2009).

Matrix of the study (Cuesta, 2009)

Table 2. Matrix of the study

Background course designSalmon (2000, 2002) 5 – Step model

Applied in the VLECourse: Autonomy and Learning Environments(Core principles in Educational Technology applied to Language Teaching)

ADDIE model

IMPLEMENTATIONANALYSIS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

EVALUATION

Figure 2. ADDIE model

Keller ARCS model (1987)

Figure 3. ARCS model

E-tivities Salmon (2000, 2002)

Figure 4. Sample E-tivity in the course

Three basic steps...

1

2

3

Metacognitive instructional strategies (Cuesta, 2009)

Sub-process 1: Self-Observation

Directed Action (moderator)Qualitative Assessment

(moderator)The Reflection Forum

(all participants)Summaries

(moderator+students)

Metacognitive instructional strategies (Cuesta, 2009)

Sub-process 2: Self-judgement

Self-comparison with absolute standards (set in the lesson)

Using Checklist as a performance comparison standard

 Self-comparison performance with peer

normative standards 

Self-comparison performance with moderator normative standards (post-

feedback) 

General Abstraction Questioning strategies (higher order questioning:

conceptsrelations (Biggs & Collins, 1982)

Checklist for Online Assessment

Figure 5. Checklist for online performance

Metacognitive instructional strategies (Cuesta, 2009)

Sub-process 2: Self-judgement  

Use of performance-based objectives

Use of tangible motivators in moderator assessment (progress judgement): praising, future error-correction+

documented readings, encouragement to develop personal and professional

products.

 Continuous moderator assessment  

Metacognitive instructional strategies (Cuesta, 2009)

Sub-process 3: Self-reaction  

Use of tangible motivators in moderator assessment (progress judgement): praising, suggesting future error-

correction+ documented readings, encouraging ss to develop personal and

professional products.

 Time extensions  

Results Self-observation stage: Self-monitoring leads to self-efficacy Explicit instruction provided through moderators’ directed actions influenced progress and achievement throughout the study.

With regards to the criteria of regularity and proximity, the study showed that most participants visited the learning platform to evaluate their performance within 24–48 hours (proximity)after a given task set in the Course Forums.

Participants read own+peer feedback.This seems to confirm that "[...] the immediate observation provides continuous information and therefore the best chance of self-assessing performance is to evaluate it while it is still being produced [...]” (Bandura, 1986, p. 363).

Results• Reasons to monitor their performance:

1. professional development immediate opportunities2. indicators to self-motivate and self-commit3. indicators on performance standards.4. indicators of learning and improvement in a collaborative

learning environment.5. indicators of learning and teaching

• Results also show that the most common type of regularity (how often) was Type B (within 24-48 hours after performance).

Results

Entries to the virtual classroom/comments to own

contributions

Time range to observe, retrieve and comment upon self and

peer-performances

Type

(12-24 hours) A

(24-48 hours ) B

(48- 72 hours ) C

(72 hours ) D

Legend

Figure 6. Sample of Observational protocol

ResultsSelf-observation stage: Self-monitoring leads to self-

efficacy

The conversations are starting points for meaningful internalization and socialization processes, relationships which influence: (a) exchange of information, (b) expansion of the shared knowledge, (c) recognition and value of the other, and (d) externalisation of feelings.

SampleRe: W8 E-1From: Student A – jueves, 23 de abril de 2009, 01:31Dear XXX:(Can I call you like this?? XXX does... -In fact, XXXX seems to be very serious for me, lately...-)We agreed on the approach we chose. I also found out that my strategy perfectly fits into your

Community-embedded learning. It is inside my workplace that I would like to implement my idea of a 'Virtual Teaching Club.' I especially want to highlight a sentence from your post "learning can be seen as a dialectic and social process raising from but especially affecting the community where it takes place." I want to emphasize the word 'dialectic' because it reminds me of great philosophers who took care of discourse to communicate their ideas. In this case, as you say, learning is not an isolated process. It arises from a given situation in a social context.

As always, thanks a lot for your thought-provoking post!!DD

Figure 7. Students´conversation #1

ResultsThe directed action strategy provides explicit feedback over performance and enhances the moderator’s ability to promote academic discussion, interact and socialize with students. The use of non-verbal, represented language on mood icons (emoticons), can contribute to a congenial atmosphere in the virtual environment, which is bonded through personal and social relations. The use of emoticons, together with a professional and polite use of language (netiquette), sets effective models of communication and interaction worthy of imitation (Cuesta, 2010).

Results Re: W9 E-1de CUESTA MEDINA LILIANA MARCELA - jueves, 30 de abril de 2009, 00:08Nicely done. Hope the suggestions were helpful. P.S Add a Why not in #5.Sleep well. Time to go to bed! Best, L

Re: W9 E-1de XXXXXX - sábado, 2 de mayo de 2009, 18:33Dear Liliana:Thanks for your suggestions and comments.It is nice to take advantage of this virtual tool to get your tutorial and opinions.Have a great weekend.XXXX.

Figure 8. Students´conversation #2

Results

The study showed that students observed and responded to the feedback from moderator between 12 and 24 hours (Type A). Students actions: (a) detailed reading of comments produced by moderator (b) comparison of feedback produced by moderator and second observation of student’s performance (recorded in the platform) (c) comparison of the performance standards required for the

activity with the feedback of the moderator (d) dialogue with the moderator about feedback occurred (e) comparison of individual performance with one or various

peers(f) self-evaluation of the quality and effort involved in the activity.

Results

Student Comment

#12 “[…] after every post or E-tivity I liked to revise the answers constantly just to know if I was right. Besides that I was always after the tutors

feedback which was always kind and motivating.”

#7 “Performance is the final product of learning processes. Reflective learning and teaching are

required to better performance”

#9 “[…] I really like to see my progress when I am learning.”

# 6 “[…]The possibility of working with first drafts of a paper has been quite useful to identify own mistakes and correct them for the final version”

Table 3. Students´comments #1

ResultsSelf-Judgement stage: Discovering oneself

through “the other”

Most students found self-observations and self-comparisons with known standards very beneficial. Categories of data included revealed that those stances were: (a) professional development opportunities, (b) indicators of self-motivation and self-commitment, (c) performance indicators over academic standards given by the instructor, and (d) learning improvement indicators in a collaborative learning environment.

Results Accordingly, self-performance can be evaluated by assessing performance of the other. “[…] A meaningful other reference point is a factual standard defined by the performance or attributes of another individual who is meaningful to the evaluator, either because of the relevance or appropriateness of the individual’s attributes for social comparison […]” (Bernstein & Crosby, 1980; Festinger, 1954 in Higgins & Sorrentino, 1986).

Participants self-compared their performances with those of colleagues they considered similar to themselves or who (they believed) had slightly greater academic capacities. 62% of students reported a classmate as such a “meaningful other”; 10% identified the course instructor as a "meaningful other. Both “others” provided participants with motivational incentives and resources to improve performances and skills.

SampleParticipant Comment

#1 “Mrs. X… because she gave me support and she pushed me to try to do things on time. I trust on her knowledge and her way of being detailed when doing things.”

#5 “Mr. X…He was always cheering me up, and analyzing why I did the way I did. It sounds redundant but every time Mr. X had the chance to participate in my threads, I felt he was reflecting on my products and ideas. This was useful to keeping up the good work.”

#7 “Mrs.Y and Mrs.Z helped me reflect on different issues. Mrs.A kept me motivated because she enhanced my awareness on different issues.”

Table 4. Students´comments # 2 Criterion: Normative standards set by peers

Results

Self-Reaction stage: Achievements are self-rewards Evaluation standards are closely connected to learners’ beliefs about their progress (Schunk, 2004). When learners believe in their own progress, their motivation and confidence grows.

ResultsTangible goals are understood as actions and rewards that the student takes on due to their academic progress (Schunk, 2004).

When ss achieved goals... (a) exploring additional resources and tools, (b) reading more documents, and (c) dialoguing and interacting with classmates on lesson themes.

Time extensions acted as routine-breakers and allowed students to pursue course activities at their own pace. It represents a “surprise element” Keller (1987)= “unexpected rewards”. Beware: Don´t exceed its use!

Results

Self-reward: Go for it!

Two main groups of achievers: a. those who self-reward after progress attainmentb. those who waited to be rewarded by their tutor and/or peers, they were generally the low-achievers.

Self rewards were also an indicator of the different levels of satisfaction and contentment that individuals may have after a learning experience.

Reactions…

“Help my peers”

“Share my achievements with

my family”

“Keep a positive attitude”

“Read a book”

“Have a coffee”

“Do not do any academic assignments for the rest of

the day/week”

“Apply what I learned in class with my students”

“Watch a good movie”

“Go to bed early”

“Eat something delicious”

“Go for a walk”

Conclusions

• The taxonomy of metacognitive strategies developed in this study helps learners understand, develop, and control their cognitive, behavioural, and emotional activity by establishing direct relationships with academic and personal goal achievement.

• The sequentiality of this study, proved to be a dynamic and structured proposal for self-regulation of learning process in virtual–but not solely virtual–learning environments.

Conclusions

Having the opportunity to record students and moderators´ performances in a virtual platform enables students to regularly and proximally self-monitor, judge and react to performances.

Verbalization and sharing of thoughts in the virtual learning environment helps students to develop their self-awareness but also increases goal-attainment, confidence and satisfaction, regardless the level of difficulty tasks may have.

Further research could explore a vast array of options in which one may consider the effect of metacognitive instructional strategies in specific skills production contexts and also, the correlation between learning styles and this type of strategies.

"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think." - Socrates

Thanks for coming!

lilianamar@yahoo.comLiliana Cuesta MedinaLecturer-Researcher

Department of Foreign Languages and CulturesUniversidad de La SabanaColombia, South America