Investigating preservice teachers' professional growth in self-regulated learning environments

Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Professional Growth in Self-RegulatedLearning Environments

Bracha Kramarski and Tova MichalskyBar-Ilan University

Educational reforms have suggested that the ability to self-regulate learning is essential for teachers’professional growth during their entire career as well as for their ability to promote these processesamong students. This study observed teachers’ professional growth along 3 dimensions: self-regulatedlearning (SRL) in pedagogical context, pedagogical knowledge, and perceptions of teaching and learning.The authors examined 194 preservice teachers’ professional growth in 4 learning environments:e-learning (EL) and face-to-face (F2F) learning, either supported by SRL (EL � SRL; F2F � SRL) orunsupported by SRL (EL; F2F). SRL support was based on the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning method (B. Kramarski & Z. R. Mevarech, 2003). Mixed quantitative and qualitative analysesshowed that preservice teachers in both supported SRL conditions outperformed their unsupported peerson all professional growth measures. Moreover, EL � SRL teachers exhibited the highest SRL ability(cognition, metacognition, motivation), pedagogical knowledge (designing a learning unit), and student-centered learning perceptions (self-construction of knowledge).

Keywords: preservice teachers, self-regulated learning, pedagogical knowledge, perceptions of teachingand learning, professional growth

Current reforms in the educational system have raised new goalsfor teacher training concerning the professional growth of preserviceteachers (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Educa-tion, 2002). In essence, these goals maintain that teacher trainingshould not be limited to transmitting subject-matter knowledgeand pedagogical knowledge using predefined, fixed methods,but rather should find ways to construct knowledge throughself-regulated learning (SRL), applying higher order thinkingskills.

Learners are self-regulated to the degree that they are metacog-nitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants intheir own learning process (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman,1990, 2000). Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that a sig-nificant minority of learners across a wide range of ages are notoptimally self-regulated (e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Kramar-ski, 2008). They lack the knowledge and skills they need toeffectively manage their learning. It has been suggested that al-though SRL is not spontaneously acquired, it may be shaped anddeveloped through participation in environments that providelearners with opportunities to be in control of their own learning(e.g., Zimmerman, 1990, 2000).

Therefore, educators and researchers believe that teachers’ abilityto cultivate learners who are self-regulated during learning is tied toteachers’ own self-regulation. If teachers are incapable of self-regulating their own learning, it will be difficult for them to developthese capabilities among their students (Crebert, Bates, Bell, Patrick,

& Cragnolini, 2004; Gibbs, 2003; Knight, 2002; No Child LeftBehind Act, 2001; Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006; Randi &Corno, 2000; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998; Zohar, 2004). In linewith this claim, research should direct attention to questions concern-ing (a) the learning conditions that will effectively create high-SRLenvironments for teachers’ professional growth and (b) how teachersacquire expertise in such environments. Such questions have receivedlittle attention in the literature.

Research results have shown the effectiveness of teaching ap-proaches and learning environments that integrate subject-matterknowledge and SRL skills (Butler & Cartier, 2004; Perry et al.,2006; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Consequently, programsto enhance preservice teachers’ professional growth should pro-mote the SRL skills acquired in the pedagogical context. Suchprograms should afford opportunities for developing practicesassociated with supporting SRL, as well as developing knowledgeand skills that will enhance teachers’ self-regulation in their ownlearning and in their teaching (Perry et al., 2006; Randi, 2004;Randi & Corno, 2000).

However, studies have indicated that preservice teachers cometo any training program with prior experience, knowledge, andperceptions about teaching and learning. These prior perceptionsoften serve as a lens through which the preservice teachers viewthe new pedagogical knowledge being taught and the new pro-cesses of teaching and learning they encounter. Therefore, it isessential that teacher educators take these prior perceptions intoaccount (Calderhead, 1996; Pajares, 1992).

Following this suggestion, our study addressed two researchquestions: (a) How can preservice teachers’ professional growth bepromoted, and (b) what is the effect of SRL support in differentlearning environments on such growth? In our study, we observedteachers’ professional growth along three dimensions: SRL,pedagogical knowledge, and perceptions of teaching and learning.

Bracha Kramarski and Tova Michalsky, School of Education, Bar-IlanUniversity, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to BrachaKramarski, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Educational Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association2009, Vol. 101, No. 1, 161–175 0022-0663/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013101

161

We elaborate on each of these three dimensions of professionalgrowth and then present an SRL model based on the IMPROVEmethod (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Mevarech & Kramarski,1997) embedded in different learning environments (e-learningand face-to-face) for training preservice teachers.

The Three Dimensions of Professional Growth

The Self-Regulation of Learning

SRL refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions thatare planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personalgoals (Butler & Winne, 1995; Pintrich, 2000; Schraw et al., 2006;Zimmerman, 1990, 2000). The process involves a combination offour areas for regulation during learning: cognition, metacognition,motivation, and context condition (Pintrich, 2000; Schraw et al.,2006). Cognition refers to strategies of simple problem solving andcritical thinking. Metacognition refers to knowledge and control ofcognitive skills. Motivation refers to learners’ beliefs in theircapacity to learn, their values for the task, and their interest level.Finally, the context refers to learners’ behaviors regarding chang-ing tasks and learning conditions.

In terms of cognitive and metacognitive processes, self-regulated learners are good strategy users. They plan, set goals,select strategies, organize, self-monitor, and self-evaluate at vari-ous points during the process of acquisition. These processesenable them to be self-aware, knowledgeable, and decisive in theirapproach to learning. In terms of motivational processes, theselearners believe in their capabilities to learn and report an intrinsicinterest in the tasks at hand. In terms of context, self-regulatedlearners adapt their behaviors to the learning conditions. Theyselect information and seek out advice and places where they aremost likely to learn (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990; 2000).

Pedagogical Knowledge

The second dimension of professional growth examined in thecurrent study is pedagogical knowledge. Discussing the profes-sional knowledge of a teacher, Shulman and others (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Grossman, 1995; Shulman, 1986) distinguishedbetween subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge,where the pedagogical knowledge subdivided into general peda-gogical knowledge and pedagogical-dependent subject-matterknowledge. General pedagogical knowledge is knowledge of ped-agogical principles, educational and psychological theories, andmethods of teaching and learning, such as active learning orstudent-centered teaching strategies. The preservice teacher needsto develop various pedagogical knowledge capabilities, like theability to comprehend pedagogical events via analysis of struc-tured lesson plans, video-captured lessons, etc., or the ability todesign pedagogical events such as creating new teaching units.Such comprehension skills are simple, requiring only that thepreservice teacher process data about existing information. How-ever, the designing skills are more complex, higher order thinkingskills, requiring the preservice teacher to create new components(Koetsier & Wubbels, 1995; Zohar & Schwartzer, 2005). Design-ing skills involve planning a main theme for a lesson, definingteaching goals, and planning a variety of teaching strategies whileusing diverse didactical tools intended to adapt the content to the

learning context. Such skills demand capabilities such as regula-tion, control, and evaluation of learning progress.

Pedagogical knowledge conducive to nurturing self-regulatedlearners entails teachers’ integration of the what of the subject withhow their subject matter content is taught. As such, SRL inteaching requires awareness concerning students’ needs and priorknowledge as well as effective use of teaching strategies. Teachersmust be sensitive to students’ zone of proximal development,knowing when to intervene in learning and when to allow studentsto solve problems independently. Teachers who are highly effec-tive in this regard scaffold students’ learning processes and fosterforms of meaning construction or strategic learning that studentsmay not reach without such expert guidance (Brown & Campione,1994). Research has shown that teachers in high-SRL contextsfacilitate student-centered classrooms in which students are en-couraged to formulate their own aims, to conceptualize their ownproblems, to design the ways in which such problems might beaddressed, and to develop knowledge out of their own interests andneeds (Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000).

Teaching and Learning Perceptions

Teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning, the third dimen-sion of professional growth investigated in the current study, referto knowledge and beliefs about how to teach and how to learn(Pajares, 1992). According to SRL theories, teachers’ perceptionsprovide a framework for their judgments about enacted or pro-posed practices, determining how teachers comprehend experi-ences and make instructional decisions (e.g., Butler & Cartier,2004). As such, teachers’ perceptions may have the greatest impacton what teachers do in the classroom, the way they conceptualizetheir instruction, and how they learn from experience (e.g., Brody,1998). SRL researchers have paid relatively little attention to therelations between teacher perceptions and instructional practice,yet it seems imperative to examine those perceptions when study-ing SRL environments of exemplary practice.

Many researchers have attempted to characterize teachers’ per-ceptions (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Butler & Cartier, 2004; Kagan,1992; VanDriel, Bulte, & Verloop, 2007; Wang, 2002). Teachers’perceptions of teaching and learning lie on a continuum fromteacher-centered activity to student-centered activity, focusing onthe following aspects of teaching and learning (Bruner, 1996;Butler & Winne, 1995; McKeough & Lupart, 1991; Reigeluth &Frick, 1999). At one end of the continuum is an emphasis on directtransmission of information from teacher to student (i.e., studentsare passive in their construction of knowledge and are usuallyexposed to a frontal lesson), which represents the lower stage ofteacher-centered activity. Next on the continuum is a focus onguidance and modeling by the teacher, who serves as the agentbetween the material and the student (i.e., students are exposed toexplicit elaborated information as explanations provided by theteacher). Next, emphasis lies on empowerment and developmentof the students (i.e., students are exposed to teaching strategiesadapted to differential student needs). Finally, at the other end ofthe continuum is the call for construction of knowledge by thestudents (i.e., students are responsible for their learning, and theteacher usually employs active learning strategies such as cooperativelearning), which represents the highest student-centered activitystage.

162 KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY

Researchers and educators who studied the role of such percep-tions among teachers, from novices to experts, found that noviceteachers’ perceptions about teaching and learning are influenced inlarge measure by their earlier experiences as students in schoolsand later as student teachers (e.g., Duffy, 1997). Furthermore, mostteachers, especially novice ones, tend to perceive teaching–learning as a teacher-centered activity rather than as a student-centered one (e.g., Zohar, 2004). This tendency may significantlyimpede the development of SRL among teachers themselves: Asresearchers have proposed, teachers who do not perceive teachingand learning to be processes in which the students themselvesstructure their knowledge will find it difficult to develop thesecapabilities in themselves (e.g., Butler & Cartier, 2004; Perry etal., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000).

Training Conditions to Facilitate Professional Growth

Which learning conditions, then, will best foster preserviceteachers’ self-regulation and pedagogical knowledge based onstudent-centered activity perceptions? Leading researchers inteacher training, such as Cochran-Smith and colleagues (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Little, 2002), have suggested that teachersundergo training using active learning, in which the preserviceteachers are at the center of the process and structure the peda-gogical knowledge themselves. This type of training holds impor-tant implications for how preservice teachers perceive the essenceof their chosen profession, develop self-regulating capabilities, andmold their pedagogical knowledge. Researchers (e.g., Butler &Cartier, 2005; Pintrich, 2004; Schraw et al., 2006) have assertedthat the ability to structure knowledge substantially depends on thelearning environment and on training toward SRL. On the basis ofthese suggestions, we first address two learning environmentsthat promote the professional growth of preservice teachers(electronic and face-to-face) and then present a model fortraining in self-regulation.

Electronic Learning

Electronic learning (e-learning) environments are an increas-ingly common setting in postmodern educational curricula. Suchenvironments provide easy access to hypermedia that offers infor-mation by a variety of hypertexts, graphics, animations, and audioor video, which the learner navigates intuitively. Technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments create contextswithin which knowledge and skills are authentically anchored thatprovide a range of tools and resources for navigating and manip-ulating information (Hannafin, Hall, Land, & Hill, 1994). “[Theseenvironments] afford opportunities to seek rather than to comply,to experiment rather than to accept, to evaluate rather than toaccumulate, and to interpret rather than to adopt” (Hannafin &Land, 1997, p. 175).

An e-learning environment gives learners opportunities for ac-tive, student-centered learning in which the students themselvesdecide what to learn, how to learn, whether they understand thematerial, when to change plans and strategies, and when to in-crease effort, based on their own needs and interests (Azevedo &Cromley, 2004). Britt and Gabrys (2001) pointed out that in suchan environment, learners need to be able to regulate, control, andevaluate their own learning progress.

Although the e-learning environment seems to inherently pro-mote the application of self-regulating capabilities, most studieshave shown that it often leads to little study because learners donot know how to direct themselves to effectively take advantage ofwhat the environment has to offer. Many researchers of e-learning(e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Blank, 2000; Hannum, 2001;Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2006; Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech,2007) found that learners of all ages fail to apply relevant priorknowledge in such an environment. They find it difficult to coor-dinate the numerous representations of information, to determinean appropriate learning continuum, to plan, to use effective strat-egies, and to monitor their progress. These findings suggest thate-learning environments should incorporate support for self-regulation during learning.

Face-to-Face Learning

Research literature indicates that face-to-face, traditional class-room learning is based mainly on teacher-centered activity. Usu-ally, the student is not active in the learning process. The teacherprocesses and organizes the learning for the student, resulting ingreater emphasis on strategies of rote learning and less on SRLstrategies. Studies have demonstrated that, similar to the e-learningenvironment, it is possible to encourage student-centered activityin a face-to-face setting (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Kramarski& Mizrachi, 2006; Zion, Michalsky, & Mevarech, 2005). Suchactivity can be facilitated via the integration of study groups,question asking, and the assignment of interactive tasks. However,evidence has shown that active learning is insufficient to developstudents’ self-regulation capabilities in the face-to-face context(King, 1990; Meloth & Deering, 1992, 1994; Mevarech & Kra-marski, 1997). The description of both learning environmentssuggests that neither may efficiently foster the development ofSRL capabilities without specific, direct support of SRL.

SRL Support

A number of researchers have argued that several key factorssupport SRL through instruction, including “embedding metacog-nitive instruction in the subject content matter to ensure connec-tivity; informing learners about the usefulness of metacognitiveactivities to make them exert the initial extra effort; prolongedtraining to guarantee the smooth and maintained application ofmetacognitive activity” (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Affler-bach, 2006, p. 9). These researchers emphasized the generality ofmetacognitive skills and the importance of extensive practice,followed by explicit guidance in the classroom using the self-questioning strategy of what, when, why, and how that helpslearners select a specific self-regulatory strategy, approach, orresponse within learning (e.g., Hartman, 2001; Kramarski & Me-varech, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1992; Schraw et al., 2006; Veenman etal., 2006; Zohar, 2004). In particular, researchers have suggestedthe utility of structuring self-metacognitive questioning that fo-cuses on learners’ understanding of the task and on learners’self-awareness and self-regulation of strategy application before,during, and after the learning task process (Ge & Land, 2003;Hartman, 2001; Mevarech & Kramarski, 1997; Schoenfeld, 1992).

Mevarech and Kramarski’s (1997) IMPROVE method encour-ages learners to become involved in regulatory learning by using

163PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS

self-metacognitive questioning with regard to (a) comprehendingthe problem (e.g., “What is the problem/task”?); (b) constructingconnections between previous and new knowledge (e.g., “What arethe similarities/differences between the problem/task at hand andthe problems/tasks I have solved in the past, and why?”); (c) usingappropriate strategies to solve the problem/task (e.g., “What arethe strategies/tactics/principles appropriate for solving the prob-lem/task, and why?” “When/how should I implement a particularstrategy?”); and (d) reflecting on the processes and the solution(e.g., “Does the solution make sense?” “How can I solve the taskin another way?”). Generally speaking, research reported thatsupporting SRL with self-metacognitive questioning elicited pos-itive effects on school students’ learning outcomes. However, moststudies examined the effects on content domains such as readingcomprehension (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984), science (e.g.,Davis & Linn, 2000), mathematics (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech,2003), general problem solving (e.g., King, 1994), and generalSRL skills (e.g., Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Kramarski & Mizra-chi, 2006; Michalsky et al., 2007). To the best of our knowledge,little research exists in the field of preservice education to accu-rately determine the benefits and pitfalls of such a model inpromoting preservice teachers’ professional growth in differentlearning environments (e.g., Zohar, 2004).

The present study was designed to explore how preserviceteachers can capitalize on IMPROVE self-regulated instructionsupported in e-learning and face-to-face environments, to stimulatepreservice teachers’ professional growth. The purpose of the studywas twofold: (a) to design an SRL model based on the IMPROVEmethod for promoting professional growth of preservice teachersalong three dimensions—SRL, pedagogical knowledge, and teach-ers’ perceptions of teaching and learning; and (b) to comparepreservice teachers’ professional growth under four instructionalmethods: e-learning (EL) without SRL instructional support, face-to-face (F2F) learning without SRL instructional support, EL sup-ported by SRL instruction (EL � SRL), and F2F learning sup-ported by SRL instruction (F2F � SRL).

Method

Participants

The study was conducted at one of the universities in central Israeland included 194 first-year preservice teachers (60% females and40% males) for high schools in the sciences (mathematics, biology,chemistry) or in the social sciences and liberal arts (bible, geography,literature, linguistics). Most of the students were Jewish (80%), andthe rest were Arab (20%). Participants with different majors stud-ied in a joint mandatory first-year course, Theory of Teaching andLearning Methods. All of the preservice teachers who were en-rolled in this course were randomly assigned to one of fourresearch groups. Each group studied this course separately underone of the following conditions: EL alone, F2F alone, EL � SRL,or F2F � SRL. Statistical comparisons between the four learningconditions at the pretest interval showed no significant differencesin age (M � 24.5 years, SD � 6.8), grade point average (inpercentages) in major subject (M � 80, SD � 5.3), or in otherdemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, socioeconomic status,and ethnicity) or in any of the study variables.

The Four Learning Environments

Research Design

As presented earlier, the main purpose of the study was tocompare preservice teachers’ professional growth under fourlearning environments: EL without SRL instructional support, F2Flearning without SRL instructional support, EL supported by SRLinstruction (EL � SRL), and F2F learning supported by SRLinstruction (F2F � SRL).

Shared Structure and Curriculum

All four versions of the mandatory first-year Theory of Teach-ing and Learning Methods course were taught during the sameacademic semester by four female teachers. The course, regardlessof learning condition, comprised 14 weekly pedagogical work-shops lasting 4 hr each, for 56 hr of total training. Workshopsfocused on teaching and learning methods based on (a) educationaland psychological theories; (b) strategies of teaching and learningsuch as student-centered activity; and (c) pedagogical skills basedon Leou’s (1998) six skill categories: identifying learning objec-tives, understanding content, selecting activities, planning didacticmaterial, designing learning environment, and planning time (seeTable 1).

Each of the 14 workshops in all groups contained three parts:

1. The teacher presented the lesson’s subject and its con-tents to the preservice teachers in the classroom.

2. Preservice teachers practiced the knowledge collabora-tively in pairs (either with the aid of EL resources or inthe classroom, depending on the type of learning envi-ronment). Practice in all of the learning environmentswas based on tasks that required comprehension of ped-agogical methods and the analysis and evaluation oflesson plans or video-captured lessons. Participants wereencouraged to participate in reflective discourse regard-ing interpretation of pedagogical events, understandingdifficulties and raising solutions for the problems thoseevents presented.

3. The teacher presented a summary in the classroom, ad-dressing any difficulties that arose.

Teacher Background and Training

The four female teachers who taught the preservice course eachheld a university doctoral degree in education. Each teacher hadmore than 10 years of teaching experience and was considered bythe students to be an expert teacher.

For the purpose of the present study, each teacher was trainedseparately in a one-day, 3-hr in-service training seminar at theuniversity. The training focused on pedagogical issues related topreparing preservice teachers for teaching junior students. Thetraining instructor (one of the authors) informed teachers that theywere participating in an experiment in which new pedagogicalapproaches were being used. The training was implemented in twoparts. In the first 1.5 hr of training, each teacher of a SRL approach(EL � SRL; F2F � SRL) was introduced to the rationale of SRL


Table 1Types of IMPROVE Metacognitive Self-Questioning Embedded in Pedagogical Skills, With Examples

Pedagogical skillIdentifying learning

objectives Understanding content Selecting activitiesPlanning didactic

materialDesigning learning

environment Planning time

Comprehension questions:What is the task’sgoal?

Do I understand thepurpose of the studyunit or learning task?Explain.

Do I understand thecontent matter in thestudy unit or learningtask? Explain.

Do I understand theactivities in thelearning task?Explain.

Do I understand thedidactics in thelearning task?Explain.

Do I understand theuniqueness of thelearningenvironment?Explain.

Do I understand theimportance of time inthe teaching unit?Demonstrate.

Connection questions:What are thesimilarities betweentasks?

Are the goals Iidentified similar towhat I was exposedto in the course?Demonstrate.

Are the terms connectedto the subject of thelesson? Explain how.

With which learningactivities am Ifamiliar?

What prior knowledgeis important for me tounderstand thedidactic material?

What are the theories towhich the learningenvironments areconnected?

What prior knowledgeis important forplanning the timingfor the learning unit?

Strategy questions: Whatare the strategiesappropriate for solvingthe task, and why?

What tools will help meto correctly analyzethe learningobjectives of theteaching unit?Demonstrate.

What tools will help meanalyze the content ofthe learning unit?Demonstrate.

What tools will help mechoose the learningactivity that is mostsuitable?Demonstrate.

What tools will help meunderstand whetherthe material isappropriate?Demonstrate.

What tools will I use todesign a suitablelearningenvironment?Demonstrate.

What tools will help medivide the timebetween the teachingunits? Demonstrate.

Reflection questions:Does the solution makesense?

Are the contents of theteaching unit relatedto the unit objectives?Demonstrate.

Have I missed materialthat is important tothe subject studies?Demonstrate.

Have I checked that thelearning activity issuitable to thelearning objective?Demonstrate.

Is the didactic material Iselected suitable tothe learningobjective? Explain.

Is the learningenvironment Idesigned wellorganized? Explain.

Have I left enough timefor exercises andasking questions?

Note. The IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning was modeled by the teacher before each practice of the different pedagogical skills.

165PR

OFE

SSION

AL

GR

OW

TH

INSE

LF-R

EG

UL

AT

ED

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

S

and the metacognitive self-questioning method. The instructordiscussed the importance of SRL in fostering learning, and shemodeled ways of introducing the metacognitive self-questioning inthe classroom. In the remaining 1.5 hr of the training, the instructordiscussed the goals of the six pedagogical skills with the preserviceteachers. Particular attention was paid to practicing and discussingdifferent answers to the metacognitive self-questioning embeddedin each pedagogical skill (e.g., identifying learning objectives,planning didactic material).

Unlike the teacher training in the two SRL-supported learningconditions, training for the EL alone and F2F alone conditions didnot explicitly introduce teachers to any SRL approach. However,all teachers were exposed to the same amount and structure oftraining related to learning theories and discussion of pedagogicalissues (e.g., cooperative learning, planning materials, ways ofimplementing high order skills).

During the period of the study, the authors observed all teacherssix times (every second week) to help ensure adherence to imple-mentation of the instructional approaches. In addition, the authorsmet each teacher after the observations and discussed any devia-tions from the approach.

EL Versus F2F Learning

In both the EL and the F2F environments that were not sup-ported by SRL, the course method was identical except for theclassroom location and the exercises given to practice the materials(Part 2 of the three-part lessons). The EL lessons were conductedin the computer lab. During their practice exercises, the preserviceteachers were asked to work in pairs to solve the given pedagogicaltasks by referring to EL resources, discussing the solution withtheir partner, and presenting the conclusions in the whole class.For example, one EL task asked the pairs of preservice teachers to:(a) explain what active learning is and give an example; (b)construct a rubric with four criteria to assess active learning; (c)select two different types of cooperative learning and comparethem using the four criteria they had constructed; and (d) presentand discuss their conclusions with the class. In addition, thepreservice teachers were encouraged to use hypermedia resources(e.g., hypertexts, video clips, or multimedia) for presenting theirconclusions. The teacher was available to answer questions and toguide the discussion at the end of the lesson.

The F2F lessons were conducted in a traditional classroom.During their practice exercises, the preservice teachers were askedto solve the same pedagogical tasks as the EL group, but referringto materials provided by the teacher. For example, the aforemen-tioned task on active learning was structured as follows for the F2Fgroup: The pairs of preservice teachers received materials onlearning styles (e.g., articles, video clips, didactical objects) andwere asked to discuss them and offer solutions according to allfour aforementioned parts of the task. In addition, they wereencouraged to present their conclusions in an active format (e.g.,peer activities, simulations). Again, the teacher was available toanswer questions and to guide the discussion at the end of thelesson.

To sum up, EL activities asked preservice teachers to act inde-pendently, navigate in a nonlinear environment, and retrieve in-formation relevant to the task at hand. The students searched,selected, assessed, gathered, organized, and combined pieces of

information. On the other hand, the preservice teachers in the F2Fenvironment were asked to act independently in a linear environ-ment to organize and combine pieces of information relevant to thetask at hand. The latter environment affords fewer opportunitiesfor regulation, control, and evaluation of learning progress than theformer.

EL � SRL Versus F2F � SRL

Similar to the non-SRL groups (EL alone and F2F alone), theEL and F2F environments supported by SRL practiced and dis-cussed the same tasks embedded within the same six pedagogicalskills (Table 1), but with the addition of metacognitive self-questioning. The SRL support was based on the four-part IM-PROVE metacognitive self-questioning model (comprehension,connection, strategy, and reflection) for enhancing SRL and ped-agogical knowledge (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Mevarech &Kramarski, 1997). As noted, the IMPROVE model was previouslyapplied mostly to learning among school students. In the presentstudy, the model was expanded to SRL in Leou’s (1998) sixpedagogical skills (identifying learning objectives, understandingcontent, selecting activities, planning didactic material, designinglearning environment, and planning time) embedded in the twodifferent university learning environments (EL and F2F). Table 1presents the IMPROVE model and the kinds of metacognitiveself-questions embedded in the pedagogical skills.

In both the EL and F2F environments supported by SRL,practice of SRL (during Part 2 of the lessons) was implemented bythe following three steps. First, SRL theory was presented (Schrawet al., 2006), and the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioningmodel was explained. The teacher presented and discussed re-search findings about the effects of IMPROVE on students’ prob-lem solving and SRL (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003).

Second, the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning strategywas modeled by the teacher before practicing each pedagogicalskill, and the strategy was practiced in pedagogical tasks in variouscontexts. The metacognitive questions were embedded in preser-vice teachers’ workshop materials, according to each of the sixpedagogical skills, as follows: In the EL environment, the IM-PROVE metacognitive self-questions were embedded in the ELtask pages and were displayed onscreen as automatic pop-upsduring the practice of each pedagogical skill. In the F2F environ-ment, the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questions were embeddedin the paper-and-pencil tasks.

Finally, the preservice teachers in both SRL groups were en-couraged to explicitly use the IMPROVE questions and providethe necessary explanations while solving their tasks and whileconducting team and class discussions. In both environments, thepreservice teachers were asked to address the questions in writingwhen completing various study tasks.

Assessment Measures

Three measures were administered to the preservice teachers toassess the three dimensions of preservice teachers’ professionalgrowth, at two intervals: pretest and posttest.

The SRL Dimension

The 50-item Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire(MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) assessed


preservice teachers’ self-reported cognition, metacognition, andmotivation in pedagogical learning. Sixteen items referred to gen-eral cognition strategies: rehearsal strategies (e.g., “When I readmaterial for the course, I say the words over and over to myself tohelp me remember”), elaboration strategies such as summarizingand paraphrasing (e.g., “When I study for this course, I putimportant ideas into my own words”), and organizational strategies(e.g., “I outline the chapters in my task to help me study”). Twentyitems referred to metacognition: planning (e.g., “When I begin towork on the task for the course, I think what is the good way to doit”), monitoring (e.g., “During the task process I often ask myselfif I am going in the right direction”), and evaluation (e.g., “At theend of the task I ask questions to make sure I know the material Ihave been studying”). Fourteen items referred to motivationalfactors: intrinsic value of learning (e.g., “I think what we arelearning in this pedagogical course is interesting”) and persistencein the face of difficulties (e.g., “Even when the study materials aredull and uninteresting, I keep working until I finish”). Participantsrated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at alltrue for me) to 7 (very true for me). Higher scores indicated ahigher level of SRL.

A confirmatory factor analysis with orthogonal rotation accord-ing to the varimax method revealed three factors—cognition,metacognition, and motivation—with explained variance of 59.4%(24.3%, 18.4%, and 16.7%, respectively). Cronbach’s alphas were.78, .72, and .72, respectively.


Two aspects of this dimension were measured: comprehensionskills for analyzing lesson plans and given pedagogical events andhigh order skills for designing pedagogical events such as teachingunits. The comprehension test assessed skills that were practiced inthe workshops, whereas the designing skills were not taught ex-plicitly to the preservice teachers. The latter skills assessed pre-service teachers’ transfer ability. The pretest and posttest versionsof these pedagogical knowledge tests shared similar but not iden-tical content and structure. The scoring criteria across time wereconsistent.

Comprehension skills. The Pedagogical Comprehending Test,based on the Simpson (2005) test, assessed participants’ analysisof two structured teaching units regarding the general subject ofmodernism’s effects on people’s lives. The students were given 1hr to peruse the units and answer a paper-and-pencil task.

Ten open questions tapped five subscales that referred to dif-ferent cognitive levels of comprehending (two questions per level)according to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy: comprehension (“What isthe purpose of the teaching units?”), application (“Sort the activ-ities in the teaching units according to teaching strategies”), anal-ysis (“What are the difficulties expected in the presentation of theteaching units?”), synthesis (“Based on the course’s bibliography,indicate the pupils’ various learning styles and how they areexpressed in the teaching units described before you”), and eval-uation (“What is the ideal teaching method in your opinion?Explain”).

Participants’ comprehending skills were scored as low (1), me-dium (2), high (3), or no answer (0). Scores ranged between 0 and30. Students’ responses were coded by two trained judges withexpertise in pedagogical knowledge. Interjudge reliability, calcu-

lated with Cohen’s kappa measure for the same 30% of theresponses coded by both judges, yielded a high reliability coeffi-cient of .94.

Designing skills. Each participant was given 1.5 hr to design awritten three-lesson teaching unit regarding the effects of smokingon people’s lives. The same judges, experts in pedagogical knowl-edge, scored the participants’ designing skills as evidenced in theselearning units using Leou’s (1998) Pedagogical Designing Index.The index focuses on six pedagogical skill categories: identifyinglearning objectives (e.g., “presents clear learning objectives, de-tailing the capacities that the students are supposed to develop”);understanding content (e.g., “selects relevant information and ex-periences from the subject to be studied”); selecting activities (e.g.,“outlines the active, ordered manner of carrying out methodolog-ical strategies or learning experiences”); planning didactic material(e.g., “defines the set of materials, resources that the children willuse to carry out learning activities”); designing learning environ-ment (e.g., “plans peer dialogue with the students during thelearning”); and planning time (e.g., “mentions realistic times forparts of the learning unit”).

Each category was assessed by four rubrics. Each rubric wasscored on a scale of 0 (not used) to 1 (used), with total scoresranging from 0 to 24. Interjudge reliability was calculated for thesame 30% of the responses coded by both judges, � � .87.Disagreements on the scoring and coding of pedagogical knowl-edge (comprehending skills and designing skills) were resolvedthrough discussion.

Teaching and Learning Perceptions

Participants’ perceptions of teaching and learning were assessedthrough metaphors presented in a questionnaire based on Fosnotand Maarten (2001). Metaphors are means to express abstract ordifficult-to-explain concepts and can provide deep insight into howteachers perceive the essence of teaching and learning (Gibbs,2003; Palmer, 1998).

The eight-item questionnaire (see Appendix) comprised onetextual metaphor and one graphic metaphor referring to each offour perceptions of teaching and learning along the continuumfrom teacher-centered activity (transmitting information) tostudent-centered activity (self-construction of knowledge): (a)transmitting information (Items 1, 5), (b) modeling by the teacher(Items 2, 6), (c) empowerment of the student (Items 3, 7), and (d)self-construction of knowledge (Items 4, 8). For example, thetransmitting information issue was assessed with the textual met-aphor (Item 1) of “The learner is like an empty vessel to be filled”and with the graphic metaphor depicting the teacher as a gasattendant pouring the learning material—gasoline—down thechild’s throat (Item 5).

Participants rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, rangingfrom 1 (not at all/never true for me) to 7 (very true for me). Eachteacher perception was scored as the mean score of its textual andgraphic metaphors, with higher scores indicating stronger empha-sis of that perception. Cronbach’s alphas were .84 for the graphicmetaphors and .89 for the textual metaphors.

Procedure

Instruction began in the classrooms at the beginning of thesecond academic semester and continued for 56 hr. The teaching


program was the same in each classroom, but the instructionalconditions were adapted according to the research design. Threepretest–posttest measures were administered by the teachers in theclassroom setting on the first and last days of the course (lasting 4hr each day). The measures were administrated in the same orderon both days: SRL, pedagogical knowledge, and teaching–learningperceptions. Participants were informed that these measures werepart of a research study to determine the effectiveness of preser-vice training. All students in the course participated in the study.

Results

We first present the findings for the professional growth of thepreservice teachers in the three dimensions studied: SRL, peda-gogical knowledge, and perceptions of teaching and learning.

The SRL Dimension

Table 2 presents the mean scores and standard deviations ofself-reported SRL for the three MSLQ components (cognition,metacognition, and motivation) by time (pretest–posttest) andlearning group (EL, F2F, EL � SRL, F2F � SRL). A multivariateanalysis of variance for the pretest results indicated that before thecourse began, no significant differences emerged between the fourlearning groups on any of the perceived SRL components: simul-taneously, MSE � 11.2, F(6, 384) � 2.15, p � .32, �2 � .13.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures (2 times �4 groups) on each of the three components of the SRL variableindicated a significant time effect for all SRL components: cognition,MSE � 4.82, F(1, 190) � 24.17, p � .001, �2 � .43; metacognition,MSE � 3.21, F(1, 190) � 37.21, p � .001, �2 � .56; and motivation,MSE � 2.92, F(1, 190) � 52.27, p � .001, �2 � .59. Significanteffects emerged for the interaction between the learning environ-ment and the time of measurement for each of the three SRLcomponents: cognition, MSE � 4.82, F(3, 189) � 5.61, p � .001,

�2 � .19; metacognition, MSE � 3.21, F(3, 189) � 8.35, p � .001,�2 � .24; and motivation, MSE � 2.92, F(3, 189) � 17.21, p �.001, �2 � .42.

A post hoc analysis according to Scheffe and Cohen’s d effectsize (d was calculated as the ratio between the differences of thepretest and the posttest and the average standard deviation of thepretest) at the end of the course indicated that learning in anelectronic or classroom environment when combined with thesupport of self-regulation (EL � SRL; F2F � SRL) was moreeffective for the various components of self-regulation than waslearning in environments without self-regulation (EL; F2F). Fur-thermore, the combination of EL environment with self-regulationwas most effective. Almost no differences emerged between thetwo SRL-unsupported learning environments (EL and F2F) re-garding preservice teachers’ self-reported SRL scores. Table 2presents Cohen’s d values for the various SRL components in thefour learning groups.

The findings indicated that the teachers who were exposed toSRL support (EL � SRL and F2F � SRL) more often reportedthat they were good strategy users. They perceived themselves asplanning, setting goals, organizing, self-monitoring, and self-evaluating at various points during the process of skill acquisition.In terms of motivational processes, these learners reported highintrinsic interest and persistence in learning. These self-reportedskills were highest among the EL � SRL teachers (EL � SRL,d � 1.07, 0.93, 0.85; F2F � SRL, d � 0.74, 0.54, 0.77, respec-tively, for cognition, metacognition, and motivation).


Table 3 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for thetwo skill areas of preservice teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (com-prehending skills–designing skills) by time (pretest–posttest) andlearning group (EL, F2F, EL � SRL, F2F � SRL). A multivariate

Table 2Preservice Teachers’ Means, Standard Deviations, and Cohen’s d Effect Size for Perceived Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)Components by Time and Learning Environment Condition

SRL component

Learning condition

EL � SRLn � 47

F2F � SRLn � 48

ELn � 53

F2Fn � 46

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

CognitionM 4.1 5.6 3.9 4.9 4.0 4.4 3.9 4.5SD 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3d 1.07 0.74 0.40 0.44

MetacognitionM 3.6 4.9 3.7 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.6 4.1SD 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3d 0.93 0.54 0.36 0.38

MotivationM 4.5 5.9 4.2 5.4 4.4 5.0 4.3 4.8SD 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.7d 0.85 0.77 0.48 0.32

Note. Scores ranged from 1 to 7 for the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Cohen’s d effect size was calculated as the ratio between theposttest minus the pretest value, and the average standard deviation of the pretest. EL � e-learning; F2F � face-to-face learning; Pre � pretest; Post �posttest.


analysis of variance for the pretest results indicated that before thecourse began, no significant differences emerged between the fourlearning groups on either the comprehending or the designing skills:simultaneously, MSE � 11.32, F(6, 383) � 1.16, p � .32, �2 � .02.

We performed a multivariate analysis of covariance(MANCOVA) with Wilks’s lambda test on the posttest scores,using pretest scores as a covariant (Huck, 2004). Before perform-ing the MANCOVA, we checked and obtained the prerequisitesfor running this test, MSE � 2.1, F(6, 382) � 1.00, p � .05, �2 �.01. The MANCOVA was followed by analysis of covariance(ANCOVA) tests. MANCOVA was implemented because the tasksfor these measures were different at pretest and posttest. We followedthe MANCOVA with ANCOVA tests to indicate the source ofdifferences regarding the two pedagogical skills.

Results indicated that at the end of the course significant dif-ferences emerged between the learning conditions on preserviceteachers’ comprehending and designing skills for posttest scoressimultaneously, controlling for both pretest scores, MSE � 11.23,F(6, 379) � 45.07, p � .001, �2 � .48. Given these findings, wereport below on ANCOVA tests of comprehending and designingskills scores by learning instruction.

Comprehending Skills

An ANCOVA test at the end of the course indicated a signifi-cant difference between the learning groups on comprehendingskills, MSE � 44.12, F(3, 193) � 18.17, p � .001, �2 � .27. Posthoc analysis according to Bonferroni on the adjusted averages andCohen’s d effect size revealed that learning either in an electronicenvironment or in a traditional classroom, when combined withsupported SRL (EL � SRL; F2F � SRL), was more effective (d �0.78, 0.67, respectively) in increasing comprehending skills thanwere the counterpart EL and F2F environments without supportedSRL (d � 0.39, 0.29, respectively).

Designing skills

An ANCOVA test at the end of the course indicated a signifi-cant difference between the learning groups on designing skills,

MSE � 31.24, F(3, 193) � 17.33, p � .001, �2 � .25. Post hocanalysis according to Bonferroni on the adjusted averages andCohen’s d effect size revealed that learning either in an electronicenvironment or in a traditional classroom, when combined withsupported SRL (EL � SRL; F2F � SRL), was more effective (d �1.71, 1.00, respectively) at increasing designing skills than werethe counterpart EL and F2F environments without supported SRL(d � 0.76, 0.40, respectively). The combination of supported SRLin an EL environment was most effective.

The findings indicated that teachers who were exposed to SRLsupport (EL � SRL; F2F � SRL) developed higher levels ofcomprehending skills, which are basic for knowing how to teachthe subject matter content. Moreover, the EL � SRL studentteachers exhibited the highest level of designing skills concerningpedagogical elements such as identifying goals, selecting relevantinformation, creating learning experiences, and considering effec-tive learning environments. Designing skills are high-order skillsthat require teachers to be sensitive to students’ needs and to knowwhen to intervene in learning and when to allow students to solveproblems independently. Such processes demand SRL skills inteaching.

Perceptions of Teaching and Learning

Table 4 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, andCohen’s d values of perceptions of teaching and learning for thefour perceptions elicited from the metaphors (transmitting infor-mation, modeling by the teacher, empowerment of the student, andself-construction of knowledge) by time (pretest–posttest) andlearning group (EL, F2F, EL � SRL, F2F � SRL). We used a 4(EL � SRL, F2F � SRL, EL, F2F) � 2 (pretest–posttest) mixeddesign to analyze preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching andlearning based on the metaphor questionnaire.

One-way ANOVA for the pretest results indicated that at thebeginning of the course, no significant differences emergedbetween the four learning groups on any of the four teaching–learning perceptions: transmitting information, MSE � 3.71,F(3, 194) � 2.24, p � .05, �2 � .08; modeling by the teacher,

Table 3Preservice Teachers’ Means and Standard Deviations for Pedagogical Knowledge on Paper-and-Pencil Tasks: Comprehending andDesigning Skills by Time and Learning Environment Condition

Pedagogical knowledge skill

Learning condition

EL � SRLn � 47

F2F � SRLn � 48

ELn � 47

F2Fn � 46


Comprehending skillsa

M 14.9 25.7 15.1 21.1 15.2 20.1 14.8 17.9Adj. M 25.8 21.0 20.0 18.1SD 6.4 7.5 6.4 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.6 7.8

Designing skills (transfer task)b

M 12.9 22.8 13.4 19.2 13.2 17.6 13.2 15.4Adj. M 23.0 19.1 17.5 15.5SD 5.3 6.1 6.0 6.2 5.6 5.7 6.2 6.4

Note. EL � e-learning; F2F � face-to-face learning; SRL � self-regulated learning; Pre � pretest; Post � posttest; Adj. � adjusted.a Range � 0–30; the pretest and posttest were similar in structure and content but not identical.b Range � 0–24; the pretest and posttest were similar in structure and content but not identical.


MSE � 4.11, F(3, 194) � 1.71, p � .05, �2 � .05; empowermentof the student, MSE � 3.65, F(3, 194) � 4.31, p � .05, �2 � .14;and self-construction of knowledge, MSE � 5.23, F(3, 194) �3.15, p � .05, �2 � .11.

A 4 � 2 repeated measures ANOVA on the pretest and posttestdata showed a significant main effect of time on each perception:for transmitting information, MSE � 3.17, F(1, 191) � 82.3, p �.001, �2 � .48; for modeling by the teacher, MSE � 3.12, F(1,191) � 49.72, p � .001, �2 � .33; for empowerment of thestudent, MSE � 4.31, F(1, 191) � 52.3, p � .001, �2 � .38; forself-construction of knowledge, MSE � 6.15, F(1, 191) � 71.6,p � .01, �2 � .47. A significant interaction also emergedbetween methods of instruction and time: for transmitting in-formation, MSE � 3.17, F(1, 190) � 21.42, p � .01, �2 � .28; formodeling by the teacher, MSE � 3.12, F(1, 190) � 27.53, p �.001, �2 � .31; for empowerment of the student, MSE � 4.31, F(1,190) �19.34, p � .001, �2 � .25; and for self-construction ofknowledge, MSE � 6.15, F(1, 190) � 32.73, p � .001, �2 � .25.

Post hoc analysis according to Scheffe and Cohen’s d effect sizeindicated that study in an electronic or traditional classroom envi-ronment, when combined with supported SRL (EL � SRL; F2F �SRL), shifted preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching andlearning toward a student-centered perception (self-construction ofknowledge) significantly more than in those environments withoutsupported SRL (EL; F2F). The EL � SRL environment displayedthe biggest shift toward student-centered perceptions, as found onself-construction of knowledge (d � 1.87). Furthermore, the pre-service teachers in the EL � SRL environment most significantlyreduced their teacher-centered perceptions, as found for transmit-ting information (d � �1.04). These findings indicated that theEL � SRL teachers highly believed in student-centered learning,

in which knowledge typically develops out of students’ needs andinterests. Such perceptions are inherent in high-SRL environmentsthat demand capabilities of regulation, control, and evaluation oflearning progress.

Table 5 summarizes the findings for participants’ profes-sional growth according to the three dimensions and theirsubcomponents.

Table 4Preservice Teachers’ Means, Standard Deviations, and Cohen’s d Effect Size for the Perceptions of Teaching and Learning by Timeand Learning Environment Condition

Teaching-learning perception

Learning condition

EL � SRLn � 47

F2F � SRLn � 48

ELn � 53

F2Fn � 46


Transmitting informationM 4.2 2.9 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2SD 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2d �1.04 �0.96 0.08 �0.08

Modeling by the teacherM 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.7 3.6 4.3 3.6 2.8SD 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5d �0.74 �0.72 0.45 �0.53

Empowerment of the studentM 4.8 4.3 4.9 5.4 4.7 4.0 4.7 5.7SD 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6d �0.31 0.32 �0.45 0.63

Self-construction of knowledgeM 2.9 5.8 2.7 5.2 2.8 4.5 2.9 3.1SD 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5d 1.87 1.72 1.10 0.13

Note. Scores ranged from 1 to 7 for the teaching and learning metaphors questionnaire. Cohen’s d effect size was calculated as the ratio between theposttest minus the pretest value, and the average standard deviation of the pretest. EL � e-learning; F2F � face-to-face learning; SRL � self-regulatedlearning; Pre � pretest; Post � posttest.

Table 5Summary of Preservice Teachers’ Professional GrowthVariables by Learning Environment Condition

Professional growth dimension Findings

1. Perceived self-regulated learningCognition A � B � C � DMetacognition A � B � C � DMotivation A � B � C � D

2. Pedagogical knowledge (on paper-and-penciltasks)

Comprehending skills A � B � C � DDesigning skills A � B � C � D

3. Perceptions of teaching and learningTransmitting information A � B � C � DModeling by the teacher A � B � D � CEmpowerment of the student A � C � B � DSelf-construction of knowledge A � B � C � D

Note. A � e-learning � self-regulated learning; B � face-to-face �self-regulated learning; C � e-learning; D � face-to-face learning. Theequals sign (�) indicates nonsignificant differences between researchgroups, whereas � or � indicates a significant difference in the groups’mean scores.


Discussion

Findings indicated that teacher training in an EL or F2F learningenvironment, when combined with supported SRL (EL � SRL orF2F � SRL), was more effective in fostering the professional growthof preservice teachers than were environments without SRL (EL andF2F). The combination of SRL and the EL environment wasclearly the most effective in developing SRL (cognition, metacog-nition, and motivation), promoting the abilities of understandingand designing more complex lesson plans, and fostering student-centered views of teaching and learning. Before discussing thecurrent results, we must caution that the present data regardingSRL skills and teaching–learning perceptions were self-reported;thus, they reflect teachers’ views and not their actual, observedbehaviors. Similarly, teaching ability was assessed only by assess-ing teachers’ understanding and design of a learning unit ratherthan by observing their classroom practice. Nevertheless, the cur-rent findings do suggest interesting directions for unraveling thevarying effects of SRL embedded in different learning environ-ments (EL � SRL and F2F � SRL) with preservice teachers.

Perceived SRL Skills

The current results for self-reported SRL substantiate previousresearch, which concluded that to achieve SRL it is insufficient toexpose learners to active learning environments; rather, explicitinstruction in SRL is required. As Hartman (2001) argued,

Teachers should not be satisfied with putting students in situationswhich require them to use any strategy they want students to use.Practice isn’t enough. [bold in original] It is also important toprovide explicit instruction in when, why, and how to use the strategy;students need to understand the rationale and effective procedures forthe strategy so they can recognize appropriate contexts for its use, sothey have criteria for evaluating their strategy, and so they canself-regulate its use. (p. 56)

Several findings need further consideration. First, why didlearners under both SRL-supported instructional conditions (EL �SRL and F2F � SRL) develop their self-reported SRL skillsconsistently? It is possible that the preservice teachers’ acts ofreflection on their learning while answering the IMPROVE meta-cognitive self-questioning strategy helped enhance their perceivedSRL skills. Self-questioning can guide learners’ attention to spe-cific aspects of their learning process (Ge, Chen, & Davis, 2005;Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Lin, 2001), thereby helping learnersto monitor and evaluate their learning processes. Ge et al. (2005)found that university students who closely followed the self-questions provided to them often used them as a checklist toreexamine their learning processes, make sure that they were onthe right track, and check their course of actions. Lin (2001)argued that self-questioning could engage learners in self-monitoring of contradictory ideas and constructing new under-standing without direct teaching of specific strategies. Kramarskiand Gutman (2006) concluded that self-questioning offers meta-cognitive tools that might help learners to shift their attention fromprocedural thinking to a metacognitive processing level, wherebythey consider strategies, establish subgoals, and evaluate moves.

Second, why did the EL � SRL learners report higher percep-tions of SRL skills than the F2F � SRL group? Our findings

indicated that although both groups were actively exposed to thesame metacognitive activities, being engaged in EL with self-questioning might help preservice teachers more in regulating theirlearning and interacting with the pedagogical content functionality.This conclusion could be explained by the very nature of EL.Electronic information systems afford opportunities for learning ina way that not only activates the relevant prior knowledge but alsospecifies learning objectives so precisely that they provide criteriafor the selection of relevant information. EL learners need to obtain,select, digest, and critically question their learning materials and torelate the outcome of this process to their own knowledge. Suchactive processes encourage the use of cognitive strategies such asorientation, exploration, documentation, organization, and elabo-ration, which likewise demand metacognitive strategies for plan-ning, monitoring, and self-evaluation to retrieve and processlearning-relevant information. Perhaps the metacognitive self-questioning was more powerful in meeting such demands than theF2F learning that afforded more conventional working strategies.

Our findings are in line with research conclusions indicating thatexplicit SRL support for junior students in EL is a vehicle formindful engagement in learning (e.g., Kramarski & Mizrachi,2006). Also, although future research must validate the presentself-reports with direct observations of teaching practice, our cur-rent outcomes seem to strengthen recommendations that SRLsupport serve as a powerful instructional technique in preparingpreservice teachers (e.g., National Council for the Accreditation ofTeacher Education, 2002).


The current findings concerning pedagogical knowledge basedon paper-and-pencil tasks indicate that participants who wereexposed to metacognitive self-questioning (EL � SRL and F2F �SRL) were better able to transfer their knowledge from the basicskills of comprehending pedagogical tasks (which were taught inall four conditions) to the higher order skills necessary to designlessons (which were not taught explicitly to any of the preserviceteachers). As conceptualized by Cooper and Sweller (1987), threevariables contribute to transfer ability—learners must master strat-egies for problem solving, develop categories for sorting tasks thatlead to similar solutions, and be aware that novel tasks are relatedto previously solved problems. It is possible that the IMPROVEmetacognitive self-questioning strategy led them to reflect moreefficiently on the solution of the transfer tasks because of theopportunity to (a) know what to do (e.g., comprehension ques-tions), (b) look at the big picture (e.g., connection questions), (c)plan how and when to act (e.g., strategy questions), and (d) makethinking visible (e.g., reflection questions). Perhaps such strategiz-ing enables preservice teachers to better link theoretical knowledgeand practical knowledge. If our findings are validated via directobservations of teaching practice, the current outcomes would thenextend previous findings that indicated a cognitive effect of self-questioning models such as IMPROVE on learners’ reasoning andtheir ability to promote transfer of new knowledge (e.g., Davis &Linn, 2000; Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Kramarski, Mevarech,& Arami, 2002).


Perceptions of Teaching and Learning

The present findings regarding preservice teachers’ initial per-ceptions of teaching and learning as teacher centered (e.g., focusedon transmitting information) indicate that quite conservative viewsabout teaching and learning are prevalent among novice preserviceteachers, who appear to emphasize the role of the teacher inleading the process. Such an emphasis might hinder possibilitiesfor developing students’ SRL skills (e.g., Butler & Cartier, 2004;Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000). Further research shouldaddress this issue by classroom observations and other in-actionassessment measures.

However, like previous findings (Entwistle, McCune, &Walker, 2001; Saban, Kocbeker, & Saban, 2007), the currentresearch suggests that despite the natural human tendency to clingto familiar perceptions—like the role of the teacher as someonewho merely transmits information—these perceptions may change,albeit slowly and with difficulty. The present study found thatactive learning combined with support of self-regulation can de-crease preservice teachers’ perceptions of learning as a teacher-centered affair transmitted and modeled by the teacher. Amongthese preservice teachers exposed to the active, SRL-supportedenvironment, the perceived focal point of learning shifted to thelearner, and the role of developing conditions to structure thatlearner’s knowledge was attributed to the teacher. The greatestshift in perceptions toward student-centered learning, where thestudent was seen as self-constructing knowledge, emerged amongthose preservice teachers who had studied in an EL environmentcombined with support of SRL (EL � SRL). This finding could beexplained by the very nature of SRL. Regular, ongoing exposure toSRL poses challenges to active learning by specifying learningobjectives and using strategies for the learning process, which, inturn, may shift perceptions of learning toward the student-centeredend of the continuum, as manifested in the participants’ changingassessments of the metaphor of self-construction of knowledge.Hopefully, preservice teachers who thus perceive the essence ofteaching and learning will be better able to develop SRL amongtheir own students.

Practical Implications, Future Research, and Limitations

Our findings suggest practical implications for professionalgrowth programs targeting preservice and in-service teachers. Inline with Borko (2004), who argued that “it is helpful to identifythe key elements that make up teachers’ professional growth: Theprofessional development program; the teachers, who are thelearners in the system. . . the context in which the professionalgrowth occurs” (p. 4), we first propose that such programs shouldfocus on the three key elements found here to influence teachers’professional growth: empowering teachers’ SRL skills, strength-ening their pedagogical knowledge, and shifting teachers’ percep-tions to a student-centered approach toward learning and teaching.Second, we recommend the implementation of appropriate learn-ing environments for preservice teachers to facilitate achievementof these goals. Teachers should be exposed to open EL environ-ments that challenge learners to undertake active learning pro-cesses. However, the present outcomes indicate that these envi-ronments must be explicitly embedded with SRL support.

Further research is needed to investigate additional elements ofprofessional growth beyond the three dimensions studied here.

Future studies would do well to examine the assumption thatteachers’ SRL is extremely important to their success in teaching(Herman & Meece, 2001; Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000;Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Toward this end, preserviceteachers with varying levels of SRL should be observed andmonitored during their actual teaching activities (Radloff, de laHarpe, & Styles, 2001).

Another direction for future study is to expand investigation ofdiverse metacognitive instructional models for preparing preser-vice teachers, in particular models that are implemented in schools.In our study, the SRL support was based only on the IMPROVEmetacognitive self-questioning model (comprehension, connec-tion, strategy, and reflection), which was found to enhance self-reported SRL, foster pedagogical knowledge on paper-and-penciltasks, and strengthen perceptions of student-centered learning. Thecurrent research expanded the IMPROVE model to the pedagog-ical contexts embedded in different learning environments foruniversity students, whereas previously this model was appliedmostly to school students. We suggest that further studies designand apply not only this but also other models for preservice andin-service teachers learning in different environments. In addition,we propose that school students’ achievements be assessed to shedlight on the relationships between in-service teachers’ professionalknowledge and their students’ achievements.

The current methodology sought to examine preservice teach-ers’ professional growth via self-report questionnaires and analysisof their written products to broaden the data sources on SRL,pedagogical knowledge, and perceptions. Further study shouldinclude other research designs such as thinking aloud, interviews,and observations. In particular, we recommend researching thesevariables during actual classroom teaching. Furthermore, futureresearch can investigate professional growth variables by examin-ing the differences among a larger sample of preservice teachersfrom different institutions of higher learning and the possible linkswith other background variables (e.g., major of study, age).

The study described here makes an important contribution toresearch about SRL, moving it in a new direction, into teachereducation, with the goal of enhancing SRL in both teachers andstudents. Nevertheless, we recognize the limitation of implement-ing each environment by only one teacher in one classroom, whichcould have confounded the teacher or classroom with the instruc-tional environment. We propose that further research should ex-amine the effects of different SRL environments on a largerpreservice scale and among many instructors.

In conclusion, the current study calls for further scrutiny ofhow preservice teachers’ professional growth emerges underself-regulatory environments, with particular emphasis on de-fining and examining features of SRL support that are linked toqualities of constructing professional growth. This call forresearch reflects the urgency of the new goals for teachertraining concerning the shift to information age classrooms andthe possible links between such growth in teachers and growthin their school students. These goals suggest that teacher train-ing should find ways to construct knowledge through SRL,applying higher order thinking skills and fostering student-centered perceptions of teaching and learning (National Councilfor the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2002).


References

Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulatedlearning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 96, 523–535.

Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty forstudent understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–516.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, theclassification of educational goals: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. NewYork: McKay.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mappingthe terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berlinger& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.

Britt, M., & Gabrys, G. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for theWorld Wide Web. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on theWorld Wide Web (pp. 73–90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Brody, C. (1998). The significance of teacher beliefs for professionaldevelopment and cooperative learning. In C. Brody & N. Davidson(Eds.), Professional development for cooperative learning issues andapproaches (pp. 25–48). New York: State University of New YorkPress.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a communityof learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cogni-tive theory with classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. (2004). Promoting students’ active and pro-ductive interpretation of academic work: A key to successful teachingand learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1729–1758.

Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2005, May). Multiple complementarymethods for understanding self-regulated learning as situated in context.Paper presented at the annual conference of the American EducationalResearch Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning:A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement:A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and ruleautomation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 79, 347–362.

Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. J., & Cragnolini, V. (2004).Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and inemployment: Graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 23(2), 147–165.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hy-potheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher,27(1), 5–15.

Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledgeintegration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal ofScience Education, 22, 819–837.

Duffy, G. G. (1997). Powerful models or powerful teachers? An argumentfor teacher-as-entrepreneur. In S. A. Stahl & D. H. Hayes (Eds.),Instructional models in reading (pp. 351–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, andapproaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everydayexperience. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking,learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 103–136). London: Erlbaum.

Fosnot, C. T., & Maarten, D. (2001). Young mathematicians at work:

Constructing number sense, addition, and subtraction. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instruc-tional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in aWeb-based learning environment. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 33(2), 219–248.

Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solvingprocesses in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peerinteractions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1),21–38.

Gibbs, C. (2003). Explaining effective teaching: Self-efficacy and thoughtcontrol of action. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 4(2), 1–14.

Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.),International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.,pp. 20–24). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.

Hannafin, M. J., Hall, C., Land, S. M., & Hill, J. R. (1994). Learning inopen-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Ed-ucational Technology 34(8), 48–55.

Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptionsof technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. In-structional Science, 25(3), 167–202.

Hannum, W. (2001). Knowledge management in education: Helping teach-ers to work better. Educational Technology, 41(3), 47–49.

Hartman, H. J. (2001). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.),Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and prac-tice (pp. 33–68). Boston: Kluwer.

Herman, P., & Meece, J. (2001, April). Teacher efficacy, student percep-tions of the classroom, and student motivation and achievement. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Seattle, WA.

Huck, S. W. (2004). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: PearsonEducation.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and begin-ning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.

King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroomthrough reciprocal peer questioning. American Educational ResearchJournal, 27, 664–687.

King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effectsof teaching children how to question and how to explain. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 30, 338–368.

Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development:Learning as practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 229–241.

Koetsier, C. P., & Wubbels, J. T. (1995). Bridging the gap between initialteacher training and teacher induction. Journal of Education for Teach-ing, 21(3), 333–345.

Kramarski, B. (2008). Promoting teachers’ algebraic reasoning and self-regulation with metacognitive guidance. Metacognition and Learning,3(2), 83–99.

Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning besupported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Com-puter Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33.

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical rea-soning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacog-nitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.

Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects ofmetacognitive training on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educa-tional Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.

Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulatedlearning: Effects of four instructional methods on mathematical literacy.Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218–230.

Leou, S. (1998). Teaching competencies assessment approaches for math-ematics teachers. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republicof China: Part D: Mathematics, science, and technology education, 8(3),102–107.


Lin, X. D. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Tech-nology Research & Development, 49(2), 23–40.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of prac-tice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.

McKeough, A., & Lupart, J. (Eds). (1991). Toward the practice of theory-based instruction: Current cognitive theories and their educationalpromise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1992). The effects of two cooperativeconditions on peer group discussions, reading comprehension, and meta-cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 175–193.

Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awarenessunder different cooperative learning conditions. American EducationalResearch Journal, 31, 138–165.

Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensionalmethod for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.

Michalsky, T., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2007). Developing students’metacognitive awareness in asynchronous learning networks in compar-ison to face-to-face discussion groups. Journal of Educational Comput-ing Research, 36, 421–450.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002).Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, anddepartments of education. Washington, DC: Author.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425.(2002).

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning upa messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching ofcomprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and In-struction, 1, 117–175.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscapeof a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring studentteachers to support self-regulated learning. The Elementary School Jour-nal, 106(3), 237–254.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goalorientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 92, 544–555.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivationand self regulated learning in college students. Educational PsychologyReview, 16(4), 385–407.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). Amanual for the use of the Motivational Strategies Learning Question-naire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Centerfor Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Radloff, A., de la Harpe, B., & Styles, I. (2001). The development ofself-regulation of learning in adult university students: Special edition onselbstgesteuertes lernen [self-directed learning]. Empirische PadagogikJourna1, 15(2), 267–282.

Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers CollegeRecord, 106(9), 1825–1853.

Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulatedlearning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbookof self-regulation (pp. 651–685). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: Methodologyfor creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm ofinstructional theory (pp. 633–652). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Saban, A., Kocbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analy-sis. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 123–139.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problemsolving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws(Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulationin science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective onlearning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth inteaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Simpson, M. (2005). The art and science of professional teaching: Pro-fessional development to positively impact student learning (3rd ed.).Kenmore, WA: Education Resource Network.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A concep-tual analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 334–335.

VanDriel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationshipsbetween teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and theirdomain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(2),156–171.

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P.(2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodologicalconsiderations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.

Wang, Y. M. (2002). From teacher-centredness to student-centredness: Arepre-service teachers making the conceptual shift when teaching in in-formation age classrooms? Educational Media International, 39(3/4),257–265.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-ment: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.

Zion, M., Michalsky, T., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects ofmetacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learningnetwork on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 27(8), 959–983.

Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Neth-erlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers’ pedagogicalknowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595–1620.


AppendixTeaching and Learning Perceptions Questionnaire

Instructions: This part includes verbal and graphic metaphors that describe various teaching and learning perceptions. To what extentdo the following metaphors represent you as a future teacher? Rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale. There is no right or wrong answerto this type of question.

Not at all true for me Very true for me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. The learner is like an empty vessel to be filled2. The learner is like a tourist on a guided tour3. The learner is like a plant to be nurtured so it grows and blooms4. The learner is like an independent mountain climber

5.

6.

7.

8.

Received October 30, 2007Revision received January 29, 2008

Accepted March 7, 2008 �


Documents

Investigating preservice teachers' professional growth in self-regulated learning environments