Strategy use, self-regulation and achievement.

Abstract

This paper reports on the students' awareness of their learning strengths and weaknesses and their awareness and use of learning strategies in a final-year high school biology class in New Zealand. Most students were aware of strategies that could help them to learn more effectively but did not always use this knowledge. Three case studies illustrate students' awareness of their learning needs, their knowledge and use of learning strategies and how they applied these strategies to tasks. Students who not only knew learning strategies but who could self-regulate their learning through selecting strategies, produced essays of higher quality.

Self-Regulated Learning 

Recently the New Zealand Ministry of Education proposed a framework of key competencies to underpin the New Zealand school curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2005). These include principles associated with self-regulated learning such as reflective thinking, meaning-making and self-management. Potentially there are multiple ways (procedures) for tackling tasks which can be evaluated by the processes of forethought, performance control and self-reflection (Zimmerman, 2001). An emphasis on student self-regulation means teaching specific strategies so that students can self-evaluate their work. Teachers may need to model a range of learning processes or provide prompts to help students to know some of the possibilities. This is so that students increase their self-confidence through believing they have the "tools" to succeed (Kluwe, 1982). Through the use of learning strategies, individuals are likely to develop more responsible roles and enhance self-regulation (Alexander & Schwanenflugel, 1994).

Self-regulated learners are aware of their strengths and weaknesses and use this awareness to approach learning tasks strategically (Darr, 2005). However, students may know of learning strategies and therefore be aware of ways to learn more effectively, but may not actually use these strategies. Self-regulation requires the deliberate use of learning strategies. It is also likely that the extent of use varies among individuals and for any individual in different contexts. Of interest here though is the important question; do learners who strategically use learning strategies for self-regulation have higher achievement? This paper provides examples to show that students who used a combination of learning strategies to enable forethought, performance control and self-reflection, achieved higher essay scores than students who did not use as many of these strategies.

The Learning Context

The unit of work required students to independently research and write essays about bioethical issues associated with cancer. The high-stakes assessment for this section of the curriculum was an essay worth 20% in an external national examination. Therefore it was very important for students to develop skills in researching and essay writing, as well as develop their biological knowledge about cancer and an understanding of the bioethical implications of causes and treatments and social implications of these. Enquiry about bioethical issues requires students to articulate, question and evaluate their personal views about the issues. These self-questioning skills, especially linked to learning intentions are what we expect students to develop as self-regulated learners. Therefore this content context was considered to be very suitable for developing self regulation.

The usual class teacher continued to teach the class during the intervention. Cueing students to identify prior knowledge and next steps for inquiry was used to scaffold knowledge of content, issues clarification, issues analysis, and knowledge of learning processes. Students were expected to ask questions of themselves, their group and resource people, and then to refine these questions. Students also were expected to identify and process relevant information from a variety of sources and to evaluate the quality of information gathered and its degree of relevance. The teacher demonstrated a technique that he called "Trash and Treasure" to help students decide, based on their own questions, what content they should record. The teacher prompted students to reflect on content and processes through questioning, checklists and bookmarks for aiding journal writing. The bookmarks had the following prompts:

Something I Learned Today ...
What does what I've found out today mean?
It seems important to note ...
I want to ...
A question I have is ...
I'm lost with ...
I disagree with ... because ...
What I need to do now is ...
I can't decide if ...
I'm stuck on ...
I wonder ...
What I need to do now is ...
I'm wondering why ...
One point of view is ...
How ...

The students were encouraged to write their own questions into their journals as a guide for their research or to use the prompts to record their thinking. The journals were collected at the end of most sessions to give feedback on progress and "feed-forward" in the form of questions the students might consider.

Research Methods

The research methodology was based on an interpretative case study approach (Merriam, 1988). This provided rich descriptions of how the students learned. Sixteen students from the same class were interviewed in a semi-structured manner, before (iv1) and after the unit of work (iv2). These interviews were transcribed verbatim. The first interview probed what students were "good at", what they "needed help with" and predictions of their essay marks (Table 1). The second interview asked students to describe ways in which they went about their learning in the unit of work on bioethics. Students' journal entries (j) and essays (e) were also used to augment the interview analysis for determining the regulation of learning.

Analysis

The information in Table 1 was collated from students' reported knowledge or use in interviews or if they showed that they had applied the strategy in their class work, journals or essays. Students were often aware of strategies but did not necessarily use them. Recording the awareness and use of learning strategies from multiple sources was used to triangulate the data sources. Students were grouped into categories according to the quality of their essays. The essay was marked out of a total of 40 marks. Students in the "Invisible Product" category did not hand in a final essay. Some students handed in a pre-write paragraph which gained some marks (Table 1). The sub-categories "Satisfactory Multiple" and "Quality Multiple" indicate students who had produced more than one essay. Students were encouraged to write more than one essay to practice the skills they needed for the external exam.

Students' Awareness and Use of Learning Strategies

Degrees of Awareness and Use

The results in Table 1 show that students who produced quality essays could give details about their learning strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, students who did not achieve as well gave broad descriptions of their learning strengths and weaknesses. See issue website http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sum2006.htm The majority of students were aware of some learning strategies. However students who achieved well reported using strategies more so than students who produced essays of lower quality. Although the extent of use of each of these strategies was not quantified, analysis of the classroom observations, interview comments and interpretations of the essays suggest that the extent to which students used planning, monitoring and self-questioning was also greater for those who produced the higher quality essays. As a group the "Quality Product" students also showed a greater amount of reflective thinking when self-reporting and asked more questions in their journals (Table l). See issue website http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sum2006.htm

The strategies targeted in this study revealed whether students planned, monitored by checking on progress, used information from peer-checking or set priorities, asked evaluative questions and consciously made decisions about the learning process. Although self-questioning can be both a planning and a monitoring strategy, it is highlighted in the table as a separate category specifically to illustrate the number of questions students wrote in their journals.

Examples of levels of self-regulation

Three students (Mitchel, Charlie and Liz) provide examples of how students differed in their awareness and use of strategies and therefore their levels of self-regulation. These differences parallel the trends in the quality of their essays.

Mitchel

Mitchel wrote an essay which was categorised as "satisfactory". His level of awareness of his learning processes was generalised. For example, in the pre-unit interview he stated very broadly:

Mitchel (iv1): I have a plan on what I am going to use on an assignment. He did not give specific details about how he could plan. This indicates a relatively naive awareness of his learning which was reflected in his recollection of other ways he learned as well. After completing the unit Mitchel explained how he had discriminated between relevant and irrelevant information and organised the information into sections.

Mitchel (iv2): I did that, just, jotting down everything that is relevant and working out what I needed and what I didn't and putting it into sections.

Researcher: So you organised it into sections. How did you decide what sections to have?

Mitchel: Sort of what went with what, just depending? Like I did the breast cancer with mammograms, and that comes into, sort of, treatment and causes.

Researcher: So how did you plan your essay, or did you plan it?

Mitchel: [No] I just wrote it.

So although Mitchel knew to plan according to sections, he did not purposefully make lists, headings or order the content in his essay, which suggests either a lack of knowledge of planning or a lack of use of control in the planning process. There was some evidence that Mitchel monitored his progress in his learning journal as he explained:

Mitchel (j): Need more info on specific types of cancer, treatments, causes, effects.

Practice essay writing. Still having problems with wording and making it flow. However, this still indicates a generalist view such as "practice". Although he had identified practising as useful, it would not be useful unless he also sought more information and evaluated how he could link the ideas so that they flowed. Although Mitchel was aware of the need to link ideas more, he did not know how to do this or make his essay flow more coherently. In Mitchel's case, he needed more scaffolding of learning processes to enable him to be more self-starting. He considered the checklist for the essay provided by the teacher to be useful. Learning ways to organise text was an area that Mitchel had identified as "needing help with".

Mitchel (iv2): Once he [the teacher] put it up on the board ... we went over what had to be in there, and [then] I worked out what I didn't have in there, which helped.

This statement shows that he did re-read his essay and consider where there were content gaps in his essay. However, he did not address these gaps by researching further or adding new elements to his essay (co). He strategically sought feedback from the teacher several times when writing his pre-write paragraph in class. He preferred to work with others rather than independently, and he set up a buddy/study arrangement with another student out of school time on his own accord. Getting feedback from someone else was his way of external monitoring and was a way for him to enhance his essay.

Charlie

Charlie wrote a "quality" essay. He knew from previous learning experiences, as expressed below, that when he planned he was more successful.

Charlie (iv2): [If] you can have a plan and do exactly what you have been asked, you will definitely get high marks.

Among the students, Charlie probably had the most sophisticated awareness of the ways he went about his learning and consciously thought about how he should proceed. The following examples show how he used forethought, performance control and self-reflective processes. For example, he described how he planned his essay.

Charlie (iv2): Like, in my essay, this is just the way it works out in my head [forethought]; you have a flow chart, the opening, and in that you introduce the question, and then you have main point number one, and I think on my one it was about carcinogens. You talk about cancer, and then there are two types of carcinogens, and I put, for example, the first type of carcinogen, and then I talked about lung cancer that was my example . . . and then the other question was talking about the social and ethical. I just stuffed them all [social and ethical issues] in one paragraph, I think, and then a conclusion. So that is why I don't plan it [on paper]; I just remember it.

His statement also suggests that a part of his planning was to make connections between what he thought was required in tasks with what he did. In other words he evaluated what he needed to do. This is an example of when planning becomes related to monitoring. Charlie commented about the discriminatory strategy called "Trash and Treasure".

Charlie: Trash and treasure because it shows that out of two pages, and it may have been more, and out of that I only really found a few lines that I really need. Researcher: So how was that activity useful?

Charlie : Because all that other stuff [information on the overhead transparency] was just trash I thought, 'cos I only really needed to know three sentences and other people were writing whole pages of notes, and I wrote three sentences and I think I probably learnt just as much as them.

Researcher: So did you use that technique when you were taking notes then later on?

Charlie: Yes.

This last statement suggests he transferred the technique and applied it to his reading of resource materials when gathering information for his essay. This was the intended outcome of the teaching of "Trash and Treasure". During this process students are required to ask themselves questions to evaluate what information is really important, which is a performance control strategy. Charlie showed self-reflection in that he asked himself many questions of a technical nature and used these to direct his inquiry as illustrated in his second interview.

Charlie (iv2): I had so many questions about cancer. I found them out as well. I found out about telomeres. I thought they were really interesting, and I learnt one of my questions that I wanted to know was, if plant cells get cancer as well, and I found out that they do, that it doesn't usually kill plants, and I think insects can induce cancer in a plant. I thought that was quite strange.

In his essay, Charlie demonstrated that he had extended his knowledge and used the idea that telomeres are like timekeepers in a cell, that their formation limits a cell's life span and then linked this to the concept of immortality. Of all the students, Charlie had the highest number of separate entries in his learning journal (nine) (as evidenced from dates or slightly different writing styles), and he wrote five questions in his journal. Charlie showed the most striking examples, compared with other students, of integrating and extending his knowledge through self-questioning. He not only considered what content should be included but also questioned how the information he found out applied to wider abstract biological ideas.

Charlie knew that using learning strategies actually helped him. He transferred the knowledge and use of the mnemonic G.E.E. G.E.E. which stands for Generalisation, Explanation, Example as a way of structuring paragraphs, from geography. Other students (Sam, Ann, Niome, Lois, Liz and Marrianne) also reported using this to check their paragraphs. Charlie reflected on how he could improve his essay through practice (which really meant re-reading and editing) and how he would make greater use of the essay marking schedule to check that he had included everything.

The focus of his planning and monitoring was to maximise the efficiency of his time which shows appropriation of learning strategies. He always worked consistently well in class, and separated himself from others when he wanted to work independently. This showed how he modified his behaviour (where he sat) to satisfy his preference for not being distracted. Charlie decided not to re-edit his essay before the exam because he considered that the time/effort required was better spent revising other content. This was yet another example of how Charlie judged his performance and decided what he would do for the most effective outcome.

Liz

Liz was a relatively able student who was accustomed to success. She was prepared to take risks by asking questions of the teacher and her peers, to increase her understanding. Despite her tendency to distract others, her awareness and control of her own learning were relatively high compared with the other students. For example she was aware that she needed help in structuring essays and interpreting the essay question and that these made essay writing difficult for her. Although Liz considered that the learning journal was not useful, she wrote more questions in her journal than any other student (Table 1). She also answered some of her own questions in her journal and clarified some questions with the teacher. For example, some of the questions she asked were:

Liz (j): Can you get cancer anywhere, or just anywhere you have fat or muscle or blood?

Then an answer to this question appeared in one of her essays.

Liz (e): Because cells are everywhere in the body, cancers can form anywhere.

This implies that prior to her inquiry, she was not aware that cancer formed in any type of cell, but was aware of this when she wrote her essay.

Liz used the questions she wrote in her journal in her research and incorporated answers from them in her essay. She proactively and intentionally sought specific information. The way she used monitoring strategies allowed her to identify what she needed to improve her essay structure and its impact. She explained how she checked the content to make sure it was relevant to the essay question.

Liz (iv2): I just read it and picked out bits that went for one of the headings of the questions. You know what your essay lacked and what to put in next time. I didn't have time to do more than one essay, but I bad lots of other things to do at this time of the year. It might've been better at a different time of year.

Liz produced her second essay after this comment, perhaps after realising that there might be a benefit in writing more than one essay. When asked what she would do differently if she was able to repeat this unit of work she replied:

Liz (iv2): I'd get everything done a lot quicker.

Researcher: What do you think we could do to help with that?

Liz: I've got to organise my time better.

In this comment, Liz was referring to the fact that she spent a lot of time in class talking and not being "'on task".

Use of Self-regulation

The students in this study were in their final year of high school and therefore they were all self-regulating to some extent. However, the level of awareness and use of strategies for learning varied considerably. Two students in the "Invisible Product" category did not use their journals at all. Other students only tended to write in journals when they were reminded or given time to do so. Some students used their journals to write plans, select information to support their ideas, apply personal organisation, consider alternatives and elaborate on ideas. The students who wrote more questions in their journals achieved higher marks in their essays. This is not implying causality, but indicates a definite trend. Those students who had a more in-depth awareness of their learning strengths and weaknesses (e.g. Charlie and Liz) were more likely to develop and use strategies for addressing their weaknesses, compared with others (e.g. Mitchel) who described their learning in broad terms. There is also some evidence that students who were able to select appropriate strategies produced essays of higher quality.

Although most students could articulate what might be done for more effective learning some were not sufficiently motivated to use these strategies. This may have been because they had not experienced the benefit of using them previously. The tentative response by some students is not surprising since, for some of them, it was the first time they had experienced strategies for monitoring their learning in this way, especially the use of learning journals. In this intervention beliefs about what learning involves needed to be challenged more. To allow more students to be more self-regulating, attention could have been given to explicitly discussing that students were expected to take responsibility for their own learning.

All students probably need guidance in identifying what they need to know. Students need to have knowledge of their own learning and understand their learning processes. Without this knowledge and understanding, they cannot be reflective in terms of using this knowledge to choose or develop appropriate learning strategies. In this case students could have been encouraged to develop learning goals more. Although the prompts on the bookmarks helped with this, students could have been reminded more often to use them. Teachers therefore need to scaffold students' awareness of their own learning so they can access and use strategies that will lead to increased self-regulation of learning and enhanced achievement.

References

Alexander, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1994). Strategy regulation: The role of intelligence, metacognitive attributions, and knowledge base. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 709-723.

Conner, L. & Gunstone, R. (2004). Conscious knowledge of learning: accessing learning strategies in a final year high school biology class. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1427-1443.

Darr, C. (2005). Five questions worth asking about self-regulated learning. SET, 2, 32-33.

Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R.

Griffin (Ed.), Animal Mind-Human Mind, Dahlem Konferenzen, 1982 (pp. 201-224). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry of Education (2005). Educate, Ministry of Education Statement of Intent 2005-2010. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Zimmerman, B. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement theories: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp1-37). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lindsey N. Conner, Christchurch College of Education, New Zealand

Dr Lindsey Conner is a Principal lecturer in science education at the Christchurch College of Education.