This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 15 November 2014, At: 14:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Metacognitive self‐portraits:Preservice teachers aslearnersM. Kay Alderman a , Rita Klein a , Susan KeckSeeley b & Mary Sanders ca The University of Akronb Midview Local Schools , Grafton, OHc Summit County Board of EducationPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: M. Kay Alderman , Rita Klein , Susan Keck Seeley & MarySanders (1992) Metacognitive self‐portraits: Preservice teachers as learners,Reading Research and Instruction, 32:2, 38-54, DOI: 10.1080/19388079309558115

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079309558115

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Reading Research and Instruction1993, 32, (2) 38-54

Metacognitive Self-Portraits:Preservice Teachers as Learners

M. Kay AldermanRita Klein

The University of AkronSusan Keck Seeley

Midview Local Schools, Grafton, OHMary Sanders

Summit County Board of Education

ABSTRACT

The research described in this article focuses on a content analysis of learninglogs kept by preservice teachers in an educational psychology course at an openadmission university. Categories of strategy use, goalsetting, self-monitoring andattributions were examined in detail. Differences were found among strategy useof successful, unsuccessful, and improving students, and profiles of each categorywere developed. Implications for strategy instruction were discussed. It was con-cluded that all categories of students in this population could benefit from strategyinstruction.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been increased interest in learning strategyinstruction (Chipman & Segal, 1985; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Much ofthis increase is due to the expanding body of research generated by cognitivepsychology. The cognitive approach is concerned with the thought processesof learners as mediators in their learning outcomes. Wittrock (1988) identifiedthree cognitive processes: attention, motivation, and comprehension. Pintrich(1988) described a link between motivation, cognitive, and metacognitivestrategies in effective strategy use. The focus on strategy use has led toincreased research about the strategy use of postsecondary students and onprograms to train strategy use (McKeachie, 1987; Weinstein & Underwood,1985). Much of the learning strategy instruction for college students has beenfor the "high risk" student (Weinstein & Underwood, 1985). There is evidence,however, that many college students need strategy instruction, not just thosewho are in the "high risk" category. Simpson (1984) reported that collegefreshmen had a restricted range of strategies, could rarely explain why astrategy was important to their own learning process, and used one strategyfor most learning tasks regardless of the content area. However, Pintrich(1988) has pointed out that the research on student learning and cognitionis greater than the translation for classroom practice. In the present research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

39

the learning strategy proficiency of preservice teachers enrolled in an educa-tional psychology course was examined in great detail in student-kept learninglogs.

It is now recognized that any learning strategy instruction must addressthe motivation of the learner (McCombs, 1986; McKeachie, Pintrich, & Lin,1985; Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989; Zimmerman& Pons, 1986). Motivation components that are particularly important forstrategy improvement are those that contribute to self-regulation: goal-setting,self-monitoring of goals, and attribution to one's own ability and effort.

Bandura (1986) has viewed goal setting as an important element ofcognitive regulation. Explicit proximal subgoals which lead to the achievementof larger future goals provide motivation and efficacy information for theindividual. Goals appear to have the best effect when they are specific, whenthe individual has the ability to attain the goal, when feedback is given, whenthe participants have had a part in choosing the goal, and when there is asupportive environment (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Self-monitoring or self-observation is interactive and reactive with goalsetting (Bandura, 1986). Self-monitoring forces the subject to attend to andevaluate some aspect of behavior and engage in behavior adjustments whenbehavior is not within the desired range. A student who devises a studystrategy, monitors how effectively the strategy is working, and evaluates theoutcome of the strategy is engaging in the regulation of cognitive activity(Palinscar & Brown, 1987). Morgan (1987) found that self-monitoring andgoal setting used independently of each other in two separate conditionsproduced the same results as a combination of self-monitoring and goalsetting. Subjects in all three conditions performed better than the controlcondition.

Attributional beliefs are another important motivational factor in strategytraining. An attributional model of motivation views the role of perceivedcauses of success and failure as cognitive mediating factors (Weiner, 1979).Two causes of success and failure that have been identified as particularlyimportant factors in strategy training are perceived ability and effort. Attributionof failure to stable ability is likely to lead to "helplessness," the belief that onehas no control over the outcome (Ames, 1985; Dweck & Goetz, 1978).Wittrock (1988) described "bad attributions" that he found among enlistedmen. They held the belief that effort was unrelated to improvement in reading.A development in examining the role of attributional beliefs is the inclusionof strategies as a separate attribution in free response studies (Clifford, 1986).Clifford suggests that the absence of strategy as a frequently used attributionin these studies indicates a need to increase people's awareness of strategyuse as an attribution for success and failure.

One mechanism for the observation of cognition is a journal. It is aneffective tool for self-monitoring, goal-setting, making attributions, and direct-ing actions since it allows the subject to see what is going on inside his head(Heinze, 1987). Journal-keeping activities have been used to enhancemathematics courses (Vukovich, 1985), reading courses (Rupert & Bruegge-man, 1986), and learning strategy programs (Weinstein & Underwood, 1985).Learning logs are used in our preservice educational psychology course toenhance and explore student metacognitive awareness, an attempt to applycurrent research to classroom practice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

40

If preservice teachers are to become teachers of strategy use, shouldthey not be "good strategy users" (Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987)themselves? Our interest has led us to research on the cognitive, motivational,and metacognitive strategies used by preservice teachers. Early analyses ofpreservice teacher logs provided a beginning profile of strategy and motiva-tional differences between successful and less successful students (Alderman,Klein, & Sanders, 1987; Klein, 1988). As these "self-portraits" took shape,we discovered that the logs offered a unique opportunity to gain a picture ofinitial strategy use and identify instances of improvement or strategy change.

The specific research questions that evolved from the early study were:(a) What are the cognitive strategies and motivational processes used bypreservice teachers in an educational psychology course as revealed throughthe use of journals (learning logs)? (b) Are there strategy differences in themore successful and less successful students? (c) What progress is made bystudents during the course?

METHODSubjects

The subjects were enrolled in a sophomore-level educational psychologycourse in an open-admission university. The course is required for all preser-vice teachers although most students have not been admitted to the Collegeof Education prior to taking the course. There were six sections of approxi-mately 50 students each. One section (N = 44 at end of term) was selectedas the sample for this study. The GPA breakdown for all sections at thebeginning of the course was: 4.0-3.6,12.9%; 3.5-3.1,27.1%; 3.0-2.6,32.9%;2.5-2.1, 22.9%; below 2.0, 4%. On a preassessment, students rated theanticipated difficulty of the course as 4.7 on a seven-point scale. They ratedthe adequacy of their learning strategies for making an A or a B as 5.2 on aseven-point scale.

Course DescriptionThere are two large group sessions per week and one small group session.

Major goals of the course are for students to learn the course content atapplication level and to become effective learners themselves. The two primaryevaluation criteria are five multiple-choice exams and seven case studies. Thegrading system is criterion based, allowing the first four exams to be retakenwith the two grades averaged together. The case studies are classroomscenarios designed to teach application of course concepts (Alderman, 1987).Students learn to use a problem-solving model to derive solutions for thecases. The final exam is a case study designed to integrate teaching andlearning strategies from the course content.

The learning strategy instruction consists of:Weekly strategy mini-lessons. These were presented in the large

group sessions by graduate assistants and were about 15 minutes in duration.The lessons included PQ4R [preview, question, read, recite, reflect, review,(Thomas & Robinson, 1972)] goal-setting, summarization, keyword and othermnemonics, and test-taking tips. The strategies were presented with examples,modeling, and brief practice. The selection of the strategies was based onthose that appeared to be most powerful for the types of learning requiredin this course and for perceived student deficiencies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

41

STEPS To Successful Performance Manual. This is a motivationand learning strategy manual developed for the course, providing expectationsfor performance, suggestions for motivational and cognitive strategy improve-ment. It also includes composite profiles of "successful," "unsuccessful," and"improving" students; a description of "mastery" and "helpless" orientations(Ames, 1985); guidelines and a form for goal setting; and guidelines fornotetaking.

Learning strategy labs. These were adjunct labs offered weekly toprovide more extensive strategy training. Since participation in the labs wasvoluntary, only about one percent of the students attended. One problemhas been that many students who are in most need of strategy instruction donot attend. Many attendees were high-anxiety, non-traditional students.

Learning logs. The purpose of the logs is to foster metacognitive aware-ness. Students wrote weekly about their learning strategies. The instructionswere:

To receive points, your logs must be dated and written in at leastonce per week. The logs are descriptions of and reflections onyour own learning strategies. The entries might include: descrip-tions of how you study and learn; any awareness you gain aboutyour own learning; self-monitoring of your learning strategies; con-cepts on which you need to ask clarification; reminders; and yourproximal goals and self-evaluations.

They received feedback every two weeks from their instructor. There was adeliberate attempt by the instructor to give attributional feedback about strat-egy use.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A qualitative analysis of the learning logs provided a "thick description"of student reported strategy use, a type of research cited by Willson (1988)as needed. An advantage of qualitative research is that it allows for unexpectedfindings. This is especially important for exploratory research of this nature.

Coding systems were devised by the authors (only one author was re-sponsible for assigning grades) to categorize the log entries of 44 students(one section) for statements of strategy use, goal setting, self-monitoring, andattributions. A log entry was defined as weekly dated entry. The codingsystem, based on the pilot study, was developed by the authors. Subcategorieswere developed in each area. The authors coded as a group to establishconsistency then each author coded a different category for the entire sample.When questions developed during coding, the authors discussed these untilconsensus was reached. For each of the categories, examples are presentedin tables with discussion of results following.

StrategiesStatements which contained references to a study strategy were coded

as general (Table 1) or specific (Table 2). General responses were globalreferences to studying such as "I studied" or "I read." Using Peterson's (1988)system of coding as a guide, the specific category included subcategories:specific memory aids, applications, checking answers against external criterion,study aids, rereading or restudying.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

42

Table 1 General Study Strategies

Strategies

Read

Study

Other

Review

Examples

-Read the chapter-Doing my readings-I studied-Began to study-Am preparing-Trying to catch up-Learn the chapter-Review my notes-Review the chapter

f

141

77

45

35

%

47.0

26.0

15.0

12.0

Note. Relative frequencies based on total General Study Study Strategies only.N = 298

Table 2 Specific Study Strategies

Strategies Examples f %

PQ4R

Terms and Concepts

Notes

Highlight

Outlined orSummarized

Examples

Study with a Friend

Keyword Method

Quiz Myself

Categorize

-I made use of the PQ4R method.-I am practicing the PQ4R method.-Memorizing the terms-Looked over the key concepts in this

chapter-Looked over class notes-Took notes over the readings-Read the chapter and highlighted

them-Been practicing selective

highlighting-Outlined each chapter-Summarized the chapter-Be able to give examples of

concepts-Learn concepts and be able to

apply them-I also studied with another student-Got together with a friend and we

studied together-Used the keyword method-I am using keyword to learn some

terms-Quiz myself over the material-Form questions of my own-Put the definitions into categories-Categorize my notes and the main

topics in the book

41

37

27

26

19

13

12

11

10

8.

13.0

11.0

8.0

8.0

6

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

43

Mnemonics -Have been using mnemonics 7 2.0((Nonspecific) -Am trying to learn terms with

mnemonicsUnderlining -Am underlining my notes 5 2.0

-Underline terms in the text

Note. Relative frequencies based on total specific study strategies only. N =216.

Results. Of interest was the number of general strategies reported com-pared to the number of specific strategies. Overall there was a greater percen-tage of specific strategies. The number of total strategies mentioned tendedto increase after the first exam, then decreased again toward the end (Table 3).

Table 3 General and Specific Strategy Use by Exam Periods

Exam General Specific Total

12345

5994566642

59109857133

11620314113775

The period of highest specific strategy reporting was during the unit on strategyinstruction. Within the category of specific learning strategies the most frequentresponses were PQ4R, learning terms and concepts, notetaking, mnemonics,and highlighting.

The study guide was the most frequently mentioned external criterionand aid. Additional external criteria included going back over own work andchecking with a friend. Also coded in this category were rereading directions/problems or restudying. Half of these statements referred to rereading entirechapters as a learning strategy. The other half were more specific responseslike rereading highlights or restudying concepts. The category "reworkingerrors" referred primarily to redoing the case study. The students discussedcase studies less than preparation and performance on exams.

Finally there were a few statements asking for help or asking questionsand relating new information to prior knowledge. Conditional knowledge,knowing what strategy to use when (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983) was notincluded originally as a category, but some examples were found. An exampleis "I even set up different strategies for different subjects. I'm using PQ4R forHDL, along with keyword when necessary. For my history class, I'm usingmainly keyword and find it is really helping."

Subsequently strategy frequency was grouped according to the finalgrade the student earned in the course and means were computed for eachgroup (A = 10; B = 9; C = 3). The C group also had fewer general strategiesthan the A or B groups.

Discussion. The coding system permitted us to see the wide range ofstrategies reported by students. The total number of specific strategies andapplications shows the greatest increase during the period between the first

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

44

and third exams. Since the third unit of instruction presents cognitive ap-proaches to teaching and learning it is within this time frame that studentsreceive the most information on strategy use. It is also likely that studentsmention strategy use more when they are initially acquiring them. As thestrategies become a part of their repertoire, they may mention them less andconcentrate more on monitoring them. For example, one student reportedin the first entry that she changed strategies and described these changes.Thereafter, each entry focused on goals, feedback, and monitoring.

Successful students reported greater use of all types of learning strategiesthan do less successful students. In this sample, the students who made agrade of C were clearly differentiated from those who made A or B in strategiesreported. Strategies used most frequently by the successful group were thestudy guide, note taking, highlighting, and PQ4R. The less successful groupreported using PQ4R, mnemonics, and definition of terms most often, butmentioned these less often than the successful group.

Goal-SettingAll the statements included in this coding category indicated an intent to

do something in the future, expressed a course of action to be taken by thestudent, or made some type of positive projection into the future. The senseof "future" and "activity" or "accomplishment" were the major focus. Thegoals were first categorized as global or specific (Table 4). Global goals werevery general in nature, indicating a desire or need to do something but withno specific, concrete steps to do so. The specific goals were those that indicatedexplicit actions to be taken or some type of measurable activity to be done.

Table 4 Cumulative and Relative Frequency of Global and Specific Goals

Strategies Examples f %

Global -I need to get myself organized. 200 41.7-I'll try harder on the next test.-My goal is to study for each of my

tests as effectively as possible.Specific -I will go over my notes and write out 279 58.2

the answers to the chapterobjectives.

-I think I'll set my goal for a 36 on thenext test.

-I will study the objectives and testmyself in the study guide.

-I will have to study a bit more oncueing, modeling, and satiation.

N = 479

The specific goals were then coded again, this time pinpointing statementsor references to four subcategories: strategies to be used, course content orassignments, time to be spent or days of the week mentioned, and referencesto tests. A fifth category focusing on log entries which contained a combination

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

45

(two or more) of the four specific goal subcategories was also included.Examples of each of the above categories is included in Table 5. The N inTable 5 is larger than that in Table 4 because some specific goal statementsin Table 4 contained more than one subcategory.

Table 5 Cumulative and Relative Frequencies of Subcategories Within Spe-cific Goals

Subcategories Examples f

Strategies -I will go over the headings and 171 28.3change them into questions.

-I'll reread Chapter 8 tomorrow.-I want to complete the questions

in the study guide and reviewthe key concepts.

Content -I plan on starting Case Study 148 24.5#7 this weekend.

-I will finish the critique byMonday night.

-I want to be able to tell thedifferences between Gagne,Bruner, and Ausubel.

Time -I will start reading on Wednesday. 88 14.5-Today I am going to start reading

the next two sections for test 5.-My goal is to review on Saturday,

Monday, and Tuesday for twohours each night.

Test -My goal is to get one less wrong 87 14.4answer on the next test.

-I am going to re-test.-I will be satisfied with a B on

the next test.Combination -On Wednesday I'll start reviewing 110 14.1

for finals. I'll do a little eachnight.

-I'm going to read Chapter 9 byWednesday using PQ4R.

-I want to read, outline and completethe objectives for Chapters 2,4,and 13 by the end of the week.

N = 604

Results. The goals were first tabulated by cumulative frequency over thesemester (Table 4). Two hundred global goals were coded, while specificgoals totaled 279 showing a slight majority. Within the subcategories of specificgoals, strategy use was mentioned most frequently accounting for 61% ofthe specific goals. The mention of course content was next in frequency,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

46

appearing in 53% of the specific goal statements. Time and test referenceswere nearly the same, being mentioned in 31% of the specific goals. Overall39% of the log entries mentioned a combination of two or more specific goalssubcategories.

Again, this data was subsequently grouped according to final grades inthe course. This sorting provided the most distinct difference in frequencytabulation. The A (M = 10.9) group had more than twice as many specificgoals as the B (M = 5) and C (M = 4.4) groups while the B group hadmore general goals and the C group about the same of each. There werealso differences in the type of goals set among the groups. The A group setmore strategy and content goals. Strategies ranked third for the B group, withtheir goals being more time and content.

Discussion. This discrepancy in proportion between global and specificgoals seems to suggest that the A students were much more focused in theirgoal setting. The B students appear to need further refinement in their goalsetting to increase their specific goals over the global before it can effectivelyenhance their performance as research suggests (Locke, et al., 1981). TheC group had the lowest mean in both categories, suggesting that goal settingwas not yet discerned as an effective strategy for them.

Self-MonitoringA number of subcategories (Table 6) were derived from the self-monitor-

ing category. Only those subcategories involving the most frequency countsare provided. Areas which students self-monitored included: awareness ofunderstanding, strategies, grades, affect related to grades, time management,and class assignments.

Table 6 Cumulative and Relative Frequencies Subcategories of Self-Monitoring

Strategies

Awareness ofUnderstanding

Strategies

Grades

Affect: Grade

Examples

-"Thought I knew material well thistime"

-"Think I'm ready for the exam nextweek"

-"Still working with PQ4R, haven'tyet mastered it."

-"Moved through test smoothlybecause while reading andstudying notes, made questions,definitions in form of examples."

-"Can't seem to get higher than a C."-"I can still get an A if I get a 72 on

the exam."-"I received a B on the last test. I'm

happy with that because I know Idid my best."

-"I received a C on the test. Disap-pointed because I studied so hard."

f

89

78

41

37

%

23.5

20.6

10.8

9.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

47

Goals Accomplishment -"I accomplished my goal of studying 31 8.2Monday night."

-"Did not reach goal of B on this test."-"I did a poor job with goals this

week."Time Management -"I finished all of my work on time in 22 5.8

each of my classes."-"Think I need to do a little bit of

studying each night."Class Assignments -"At first the case studies were hard, 19 5.0

but now I have the hang of it."-"I learned a lot from the article and

abstract had to write."Course Content -"I understand concepts of positive 11 2.9

and negative reinforcement, butI'm having a problem with classicalconditioning."

-"Different taxonomies confusingbecause sometimes I mix upanalysis and evaluation."

Study Environment -"I study best in complete silence." 9 2.3-"Classical music helps me to

concentrate."

Note. N = 378

Results. Of these subcategories, awareness of understanding andstrategies accounted for approximately 50% of the statements. Grades andaffect about grades accounted for about 21% of the monitoring. The nextmost frequent category was goal accomplishment, accounting for 7.6% ofthe monitoring statements. There was less monitoring of course content andstudy environment. Other categories coded but accounting for less than 1%each of the frequencies were: confidence, anxiety, organization, and effective-ness of study techniques.

Discussion. In analyzing the learning logs of preservice teachers, we wereinterested in the use of metacognitive activities. We found that in the majorityof cases, the components of metacognition specified by Palinscar & Brown(1987), devising, monitoring and evaluating the outcome of strategy, werenot reported in the logs. Rather these preservice teachers engaged in whatwe termed self-monitoring, the students' observing or recording of their ownactions, behaviors, thoughts, and or affect (Klein, 1988). They focused moreon observing and recording rather than on regulation of strategies, a criticalfactor in strategy transfer.

AttributionAll statements expressing reasons for success and failure were selected

for coding. Students gave reasons for test scores, goal accomplishment, casestudy performance, and learning strategy effectiveness. Success and failurewere categorized according to the student's perception. For some students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

48

failure was making two points lower on an exam although the grade was stillan A. For a few students the attainment of C was viewed as a success on aspecific exam. The categorizing of these attributions was based on categoriesmost frequently identified in prior research as important for academic tasks:ability, effort, and task difficulty (Table 7).

Table 7 Cumulative and Relative Frequencies of Attribution Categories

Categories Examples f

Strategy

Effort

Ability

Difficulty

Other

-Looks as if answering question from 88 50.5study guide paid off. I missed halfas many.

-Finally met my goal. From past casestudy and learning strategy chapterfound myself studying in morepositive way and it showed.

-PQ4R helped me remember better.-I disappointed myself. I was careless

the night before and instead ofreviewing my notes, I went out.

-Did not do well as had hoped. Willreread material and quiz myself,ask myself glossary terms.

-Didn't study enough. Know could 24 13.9have done better if I tried more.

-Retest was a success. Glad I took •extra effort to do it.

-Got C. Didn' t dedicate myself asmuch as I should.

-Felt better after second exam. . .be- 20 11.5cause understood problem better.

-I ended up getting a D . . .1 talked toone person who only missed eightquestions and didn't even read thechapter. I must be really dumb. .. .

-I failed my first test and got a D on thesecond. I'm beginning to think itmust be me. I really must be stupid. ;

-Was at first disappointed, but test 17, 9.7was difficult.

-Test more difficult than I imagined.-Work interferes. 25 14.4-TV.-Grading.-Firsttest. •-Family.-Worry.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

49

Strategy use was added as a separate category. There were a few cases wherestatements were coded for attribution although the student did not explicitlystate, "I failed because . . .". In these cases, a student might say "I did notdo as well as I thought I would," then follow with a statement from whichwe could infer the attribution (e.g., "I'm going to restudy . . .").

Results. A total of 186 attributional statements were coded. Contrary toprevious research (Folkes study, cited in Weiner, 1979), there were moreattributions given for success than for failure. One hundred eight or 58% ofthe attributions were for success while 42% were for failure.

The major reasons given for success and failure are shown in Table 7.Strategy use accounted for 43% of the reasons and was by far the majorreason given. Other reasons fall primarily in categories usually identified inattributional research: effort, ability, and task difficulty.

The most frequent affective responses were "disappointed" (9) and"happy" (10). Positive affective expressions were found more frequently thannegative. Other positive statements were "proud," "satisfied," and "pleased."

Discussion. The coding of attributions for success and failure across asemester course provided a view into cognitions occurring in a naturalisticsetting. More importantly the links between motivation and strategy becamemore apparent. There is support from our study for Clifford's (1986) conten-tion that awareness of strategy use increases its use as an attribution forsuccess and failure. Compared to pilot codings of attributions in previoussemesters, there were fewer "mystery" attributions in this sample, that is,failure acknowledgement accompanied with "I don't know what happened."

There were several factors in the instructional materials and process thatcould have stimulated more attributions for strategy use. The notion thateffective strategies are the key to success is embedded in all instructionalcomponents. For example, the STEPS manual provides examples of reasonsfor success and failure given by successful and unsuccessful students anddifferentiates between helpless and mastery students. Students were givenattributional feedback in their logs for strategy use and effort.

PORTRAITS OF LEARNERS

From the analysis of the logs, we have presented data on the types oflearning strategies, goal-setting and self-monitoring, and attributions found instudent logs. From this data, what type of student metacognitive portraitsemerge? Three different categories or portraits of students became apparent:students who began with success, the improving group, and the less successfulgroup. The following are portraits we have drawn of these groups.

Less successful. This group had fewer log entries and displayed leastoverall metacognitive awareness. They think of studying in very general terms,more often in terms of time spent. They have fewer goals and these alsomore frequently relate to time. They are particularly sparse on attributionsfor failure. They are often in the dark as to why they did not succeed, thinkingthey "knew it." Since they show fewer goals, they show less monitoring. Thisgroup did show improvement in performance and strategy use toward theend of the course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

50

Improving student. The portrait in which the metacognitive awarenesscan be seen most clearly is that of the improving student. These students arecharacterized by having made a change at some point early in the course.They usually focused on strategies as the key to successful performance,displaying a strong mastery orientation. When they were dissatisfied with theirperformance, they looked for different strategies or sought to improve theircurrent strategies. This group was strong on specific goals. They monitoredtheir progress and looked for reasons for success as well as failure.

Successful student. These were the students who started with a strongperformance and continued. In their log entries they used fewer attributions,fewer goals and spoke less about the different categories of strategies. Theirlearning seemed to be at a deeper level, however, focusing more on applica-tions of the content. Since they don't have to struggle as much with the initialstages of strategy acquisition, they can direct their energies toward moresophisticated forms of application.

The group from which we learned most about learning strategies wasthe improving group. Students seemed to be most aware of strategy usewhen they were acquiring them. Their logs appeared to reflect the flow ofmetacognition: the formation of attributions and goals, followed by refininggoals and monitoring strategies which are crucial for continued improvement.The portraits of learners particularly highlight the link between motivation,cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Pintrich, 1988) as they occurred in anaturalistic setting. This is the group where the mechanisms or triggers ofchange can be most readily seen. The most important trigger appeared to bedissatisfaction with performance (Bandura & Cervone, 1983). A strong mas-tery orientation (Dweck & Goetz, 1978) was also apparent in this group, thatis, when failure occurred they looked for new strategies.

We learned less about explicit learning strategies from the successfulstudents' logs but their entries reflected the more mature processing proce-dures of elaboration, application, and the linking of new knowledge with theknowledge they already possess. These logs might reveal more about deeplevel processing and types of knowledge such as semantic, procedural, andstrategic (Mayer, 1987).

While the learning logs of the less successful students yielded little concretelearning strategy data, their glaring omission of words and concepts doesinform us of the immediate needs of these students. Basic instruction in theprocesses of learning, along with assistance in developing metacognitiveawareness is as important as their need for content instruction. The fact thatthe logs of unsuccessful students revealed more of a void than a portraitemphasizes the importance of providing learning strategy instruction withinthe classroom at all levels of education.

Another feature of these portraits is the interdependence of these proces-ses of strategy use, goal setting, self-monitoring, and attribution as they occur-red in students' logs. Some logs presented a clearer picture of the relationshipamong these processes. The following are sequential excerpts from one stu-dent's log which illustrated a highly developed relationship that began whenthe student did not meet self-imposed standards.Third Week

Got 32/40 on exam. First read chapters, then did reviews in study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

51

guide. Reviewed class notes but should have done before lastnight. Know could have done better if I had put more time in it.I know B in any course is OK, but for me an A is my goal.

Next EntryMy first chance to do homework all week. I worked on my bulletinboards [for another class]. I guess setting achievable goals doeshelp. Its kind of like giving a test to yourself. Even though no oneelse knows about it you still feel like you failed if you don't achieveit. Next week I'm going to achieve these goals.1. Have my correct chapters read for each class.2. Get all the information I need for my bulletin board.

Next EntrySo far so good. I've kept up on my reading and finished two outof three programs. My goals from last week are almost achieved.On to new ones. "I'm going to actually start my bulletin board."I've discovered that setting achievable goals makes you realizethat even though it seems like there is a mountain of work, youcan get it done, one step at a time.

Next EntryI didn't finish two of my goals. I think I have to get a few prioritiesstraight.

Next EntryI started to implement the PQ4R technique we were taught inclass. I read the overview, topic headings, and the summary. Ididn't ask questions, but I did use the study guide. I improved mygrade to a 36 this time. I'm very happy about that, not onlybecause of the score, but because I tried to use this techniqueand it started to work.

There appears to be a cycle which begins with the student's dissatisfactionwith lower performance. It progresses by the monitoring of strategies used,an internal-unstable attribution for the performance, and a specific goal fora grade. It continues with additional specific proximal goals being set andmonitored. New strategies were implemented with subsequent success attrib-uted to the strategy. This example may be an optimal pattern of motivationand strategy use.

CONCLUSION

Although we can only generalize about the students of this college ofeducation, a most important conclusion is that these students cannot be leftto discover strategies on their own. Other research has found that students'reports of strategy use coincides with teacher emphasis on strategies (Moehly,Leal, Pechman, Johnson, Santulli, Rao, Hart, & Burney, 1986). An increasein specific strategy use reported by students coincided with the increase instrategy instruction provided in this course. For example, after the minilessonsin PQ4R and goal setting were added, there was an increase in log reportsof the use of these techniques.

It appears that most students, including the successful group can benefitfrom strategy instruction. Although this group began with a repertoire ofstrategies that enabled them to be successful, as prospective teachers of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

52

strategy use, they need to gain fluency in metacognition. Even the groupidentified as less successful showed some gains in strategies toward the endof the course. While this occurred too late in the semester to effect a changein their grades, they may carry this new awareness into their future academicpursuits especially if subsequent instructors continue the emphasis on strategyuse.

The coding of student-kept learning logs provided an image of learnersnot visible in questionnaires and surveys which we had previously used. Wewere able to glimpse some metacognitive factors in an individual's learningprocess as it was taking place. The logs allowed us to see that the context orpurpose of a strategy is crucial to understanding the strategy use. The typesof goals students set: content, strategy, time, etc., were much more indicativeof their future achievements than the simple fact that they set goals. Fromthe attribution categories expressed in the logs, we saw the dynamics ofperformance, attribution, and strategy adjustment.

Since self-monitoring may be basic to the overall developmental process,the use of journals or logs which are by nature a self-monitoring tool, appearsto be a powerful instrument for strategy improvement of the improving student.As a consequence of this data and the emerging portraits our joumalingassignments have become much more structured to address needs of the lesssuccessful student as well. For example, students are now required to setweekly proximal goals. The increased structure of assignments and the weeklygoals have provided for increased feedback by teachers and increasedmonitoring by students. There was some indication that since the courseoperates on a criterion grading system that this had a facilitative effect ongoal setting and learning strategy use. For example the criterion for an A orB was quite often the focus of student goals. This orientation on masteryelicits the need to look for more effective strategies to accomplish the criterion,a characteristic of "mastery" students (Licht & Dweck, 1984). This is consistentwith the advantages of the "mastery classroom" as described by Ames andArcher (1988).

The body of research in learning strategy instruction has increased tothe extent that learning strategy instruction is a possible component for teachereducation programs. The striking differences in the self-portraits that emergedfrom our students' learning logs confirmed the importance of strategy instruc-tion at the college level and is mandatory for our program. In addition teachersshould avail themselves of current research. We must be "good strategyusers" ourselves so that we can continually model and instruct our studentsto this same end.

REFERENCESAlderman, M. K. (1987, April). Case studies in educational psychology: Exploration of knowledge

application by preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Washington, D.C.

Alderman, M. K., Klein, R., & Sanders, M. (1987). An investigation of learning strategies andstrategy training of preservice teachers in an educational psychology course. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Ames, C. (1985). Attributions and cognitions in motivation theory. In M. K. Alderman & M. W.Cohen (Eds.), Motivation theory and practice for preservice teachers (Teacher EducationMonograph No. 4). Washington, D.C: ERIC Clearing House on Teacher Education.

Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategiesand motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

53

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing

the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,1017-1028.

Chipman, S. F. & Segal, J. W. (1985). Higher cognitive goals for education: An introduction.In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glasser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (pp. 1-20).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clifford, M. (1986). The comparative effects of strategy and effort attributions. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 56, 75-83.

Dweck, C. S. & Goetz, T. (1978). Attributions and learned helplessness. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes,& R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research, (Vol. 2, pp. 157-179). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Heinze, C. (1987). Gaining insight through "journaling." Academic Therapy, 22, 489-495.Klein, R. A. (1988). Learning strategy instruction: An assessment of the effects of goal setting

instruction on goal-setting, self-monitoring and attribution. Unpublished master's thesis,The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio.

Licht, B. & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction ofchildren's achievement orientation with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628-636.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K., Saari, L. & Latham, G. (1981). Goal-setting and performance, 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.McCombs, B. L. (1986). The role of the self-system in self-regulated learning. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 11, 314-332.McKeachie, W. J. (1987). The need for study strategy training. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz,

& P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instructionand evaluation (pp. 3-10). San Diego: Academic Press.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y. (1985). Teaching learning strategies. EducationalPsychologist, 20, 153-160.

Moley, B. E., Leal, L., Pechman, E. M., Johnson, T. D., Santulli, K. A., Rao, N., Hart, S. S.,& Burney, L. (1986, March). Relationships between teachers' cognitive instruction andchildren's memory skills. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the SouthwesternSociety for Research in Child Development, San Antonio, Texas.

Morgan, M. (1987). Self-monitoring and goal setting in private study. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 12, 1-6.

Palinscar, A. M. & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention tometacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 66-77.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y. & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 8, 293-316.

Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional knowledge for classroom learningand teaching. Educational Researcher, 17, 5-14.

Pintrich, P. R. (1988). Student learning and college teaching. In R. E. Young & K. E. Eble (Eds.),College teaching learning: Preparing for new commitments (pp. 71-86). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, S. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy userscoordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Veste & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals ofchild development. Vol. 5, (pp. 89-129). New York: JAI Press.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. (1989). Classroom strategyinstruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.

Rupert, P. R. & Brueggeman, M. A. (1986). Reading journals: Making the language connectionin college. Journal of Reading, 30, 26-33.

Simpson, M. L (1984). The status of study strategy instruction: Implications for classroomteachers. Journal of Reading, 28, 136-143.

Thomas, E. L. & Robinson, H. A. (1972). Improving reading in every class: A sourcebook forteachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Vukovich, D. (1985). Ideas in practice: Integrating math and writing through the math journal.Journal of Developmental Education, 9, 19-20.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 71, 3-25.

Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-325). New York: Macmillan.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

54

Weinstein, C. E. & Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies: The how of learning. In J.W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (pp. 241-258).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Willson, V. L. (1988). Evaluation of learning strategy research methods and techniques. In C.E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issuesin assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 263-274). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wittrock, M. (1988). A constructive review of research on learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein,E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment,instruction and evaluation (pp. 263-274). San Diego: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessingstudent use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal,23, 614-628.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14