200 C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l l i n g / R e v u e c a n a d i e n n e d e c o u n s e l i n g / 1 9 9 8 , V o l . 32:3

Relationship Between Metacognit ion, Motivat ion, Locus of Contro l , Self-Efficacy, and Academic Achievement

Jeffrey Landine District #17, Oromocto, NB John Stewart University of New Brunswick

A b s t r a c t

T h e p u r p o s e o f this stucly was to e x a m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m e t a c o g n i t i o n a n d c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s a n d t h e r o l e they p l a y i n a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t . B i g g s ' (1987) m o d e l o f m e t a c o g n i t i o n was u s e d as the t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k f o r t h e study. M e a s u r e s o f m e t a c o g n i t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , a n d self -eff icacy w e r e u s e d to c o m p a r e w i t h s t u d e n t s ' i n d i c a t i o n o f c u r r e n t a c a d e m i c average . T h e s e m e a s u r e s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d to a s a m p l e o f 108 G r a d e 12 s tudents i n N e w B r u n s w i c k a n d N e w f o u n d l a n d . T h e resul ts i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n m e t a c o g n i t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , self-efficacy, a n d a c a d e m i c average. It was c o n c l u d e d that m e t a c o g n i t i o n a n d these p e r s o n a l i t y var iab les are r e l a t e d to a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t .

R é s u m é

C e t t e r e c h e r c h e avait c o m m e b u t d ' é t u d i e r l a r e l a t i o n e n t r e l a m e t a c o g n i t i o n et ce r ta ines var iab les d e p e r s o n n a l i t é , a i n s i q u e le r ô l e j o u é p a r ce l les -c i d a n s le r e n d e m e n t s c o l a i r e . L e m o d è l e d e m e t a c o g n i t i o n d e B i g g s (1987) a serv i d e c a d r e t h é o r i q u e d e l ' é t u d e . O n a c o m p a r é des m e s u r e s d e m e t a c o g n i t i o n , d e m o t i v a t i o n , d e l o c u s d e c o n t r ô l e et d ' e f f i c a c i t é p e r s o n n e l l e à l a m o y e n n e s c o l a i r e a c t u e l l e i n d i q u é e p a r l ' é t u d i a n t ( e ) . C e s m e s u r e s o n t é t é a p p l i q u é e s à u n é c h a n t i l l o n d e 108 é t u d i a n t s d e l a 12e a n n é e a u N o u v e a u - B r u n s w i c k et e n T e r r e - N e u v e . L e s résultats i n d i q u e n t q u ' i l ex is te des c o r r é l a t i o n s pos i t ives i m p o r t a n t e s e n t r e l a m e t a c o g n i t i o n , l a m o t i v a t i o n , le l o c u s d e c o n t r ô l e et l ' e f f i cac i té p e r s o n n e l l e d ' u n e p a r t et l a m o y e n n e s c o l a i r e d ' a u t r e p a r t . O n a d o n c c o n c l u q u e l a m e t a c o g n i t i o n et les var iab les d e p e r s o n n a l i t é é t u d i é e s sont r e l i é e s a u r e n d e m e n t s c o l a i r e .

Why are some students more motivated to learn than others? Why do some students learn more effectively than others? Counsellors, who help individuals learn new skills and behaviours deal with such questions i n their professional practice. M o r e specifically, school counsellors address these questions as they work with students who want to increase their levels of academic success. The answers to these questions are l ikely to be found by combining knowledge i n many fields, for example personality, cognition, and learning (Boekaerts, 1986).

L i n d n e r and Harris (1992) suggested that the self-regulated learner is "organized, autonomous, self-motivated, self-monitoring, self-instructing, i n short, behaves i n ways designed to maximize the efficiency and productivity of the learning process" (p. 2). The i r description del in­eates some of the primary dimensions which interest school counsellors and educators today, i.e. metacognition, learning strategies, and person­ality variables.

C o r r e l a t e s o f M e t a c o g n i t i o n 201

The study of metacognition includes two broad components: a knowledge-based component, and a process-based component. The knowledge-based component focuses on information ranging f rom spe­cific knowledge about personal learning strategies to more general knowledge about strategies and their use. The process-based component emphasizes the application of knowledge involving self-monitoring and self-regulation, and use of metacognitive strategies. M a x i m u m learning outcomes are realized when the learning includes both knowledge and process components (Corno, Coll ins , & Capper, 1982; Jacobs & Paris, 1987).

O n e model that predicts increased academic success from the use of metacognition is that proposed by Biggs' (1987). Biggs (1987) defined metacognition as "knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes . . . and the active monitor ing and regulation of these processes" (p. 2). His model combines a student's motive i n approaching a learning task with a metacognitive strategy to produce a distinct approach to learning. H e recognized three separate approaches: a surface approach, a deep approach, and an achieving approach. A surface approach is usually composed of a surface motive, which is an attempt to meet m i n i m u m institutional requirements, and a surface strategy, l imited to rote memor­ization of bare essentials. A deep approach combines a deep motive, such as actualizing interest and competence, with a deep strategy, such as relating information to previous knowledge. A n achieving approach joins an achieving motive, such as ego enhancement through good grades, with an achieving strategy, such as organizing time and work space and regulating behaviour to that expected of a good student. Both the deep and achieving approaches are considered to involve high level uses of metacognition while the surface approach involves a shallow use of metacognition.

W h e n faced with a learning task, students use a learning strategy that corresponds to their motivation for learning (Biggs, 1985; Watkins & Hattie, 1992). The first decision students must make is to recognize which strategy works best with their motive in approaching the learning task. Once the learner is aware of what the task demands, he or she may exercise control over his or her strategic options. Usually, students adopt a surface approach as an unth inking and short-term reaction to a learn­ing task resulting i n a strategy characterized as a shallow use of meta­cognition. The achieving and deep approaches presuppose high levels of metacognition as they require greater self-knowledge and task-knowledge (Biggs, 1987).

The use of metacognition appears to be related to academic achieve­ment and enhanced learning outcomes (Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Vermunt, 1987; Wittrock, 1983). Watkins and Hattie (1992) reported that high academic achieving students are more likely to utilize strategies congru-

202 J e f f r e y L a n d i n e a n d J o h n Stewart

ent with their motivational states. F r o m a developmental perspective, Biggs (1987) and Bondy (1984) suggested that age varies directly with capacity to understand and apply metacognitive knowledge and strate­gies. Metacognition does not appear, however, to be related to gender (Biggs, 1987; Otero, Hopkins 8c Campanario, 1992).

There appears to be a relationship between metacognition and certain personality variables inc luding motivation, locus of control, and self-efficacy (Biggs, 1987; Corno , et al., 1982; Garcia & Pintrich, 1991). Kurtz and Borkowski (1984) and others (Biggs, 1985; Stipek, 1982) suggested a positive relationship between the use of metacognition and motivation to achieve i n students. In addition to research evidence of a positive relationship between motivation and academic achievement (Corno, et al. , 1982; Uguroglu & Walberg, 1986, Wittrock, 1983), there appears to be a l ink between high levels of motivation, high levels of self-efficacy and an internal locus of control (Harter, 1981; Schneider, Borkowski, Kurtz, & Kerwin, 1986). M o r e specifically, intrinsic motivation has been l inked to high levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem (Bandura, 1977; Johnson, 1979), an internal locus of control (Tzuriel 8c Haywood, 1985) and autonomy or self-determination (Cl i f ford, C h o u , Mao, L a n , & K u o , 1990; Garcia & Pintrich, 1991).

Locus of control and self-efficacy positively correlate with academic achievement (Cams 8c Cams, 1991; Corre l i , 1990; Schneider, et al. , 1986). Locus of control appears to be related to both metacognition and motivation (Corno, et al. , 1982; Schneider, et al. , 1986) primarily because of the element of internal control or self-regulation. Self-efficacy may also be related to both metacognition and motivation (Bergan, 1990; Grote 8c James, 1991; Harter, 1981) because it involves one's belief that he or she is able to perform a task.

In summary, there is evidence of a positive correlation between meta­cognition, motivation, locus of control, and self-efficacy, and each of these variables appears to be related to academic achievement. While a common thread i n this research is the interest in the distinctive ways people learn, there is still m u c h disagreement about the role of person­ality variables i n learning (Biggs, 1987). While motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and metacognition (Vermunt, 1987) are both related to academic achievement, little is known about how much of the relationship between metacognition and academic achievement is attributable to motivation. Biggs ( 1985) suggested that intrinsic motivation was an important part of the relationship between metacognitive approaches to learning and academic success. Other authors (Corno, et al. , 1982; Harrison, 1991; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) indicated that locus of control and self-efficacy also account for some of the relationship between metacognition and academic achievement. The positive rela-

C o r r e l a t e s o f M e t a c o g n i t i o n 203

tionship between metacognition and academic success, then, may be partially attributable to motivation, locus of control, and self-efficacy.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between metacognition and academic achievement, motivation, locus of control, and self-efficacy, and to determine how much variance each variable contributed to academic average. It was hypothesized that there would be a significant positive correlation between metacognition, motivation, locus of control , self-efficacy, and academic average.

M E T H O D

Sample

Subjects i n this study were taken from two high schools. O n e high school, located in New Brunswick had a student population of 900 and serves both urban and rural populations. The second high school, located i n Labrador had a student population of 450 and serves mainly an urban population. These schools were chosen for their representativeness of the Canadian mix of rural and urban population settings, and the willingness of the principals to participate i n the study. Grade 12 students studying university preparatory English were chosen to ensure that a range of metacognitive strategy use would be found i n the sample. O f the 216 students within these schools who were taking university preparatory English, 108 volunteered to participate i n the study. According to Babbie (1973), a response rate of 50% is adequate for analysis and reporting. This sample population consisted of 52 females and 56 males ranging in ages from 17 to 19 years.

Instrumentation

Learning Process Questionnaire ( L P Q ) . The Learning Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987) is a 36 item scale designed to assess the extent to which a secondary school student endorses different metacognitive approaches to learning. Students responded on a 5-point Likert scale to items as "I tend to study only what's set; I usually don't do anything extra." Their responses were summed to yield a total possible score ranging from 36 to 180. The total score is an indication of the student's approach to learning with high scores interpreted to mean a high level use of metacognition, while low scores are interpreted to mean a shallow use of metacognition.

The L P Q indicates acceptable validity and reliability. Biggs (1987) found that it related to student performance i n consistent and predict­able ways as indicated by the theoretical model supporting the scale. Watkins and Hattie (1992) tested the reliability of the L P Q using a sample of grades 7, 9, and 11 students f rom 185 schools and obtained alpha coefficients ranging f rom 0.51 to 0.71.

204 J e f f r e y L a n d i n e a n d J o h n Stewart

General Information Questionnaire. The General Information Questionnaire contained questions referring to such student characteristics as age, sex, and an indication of the academic average on a recent school reportage. This instrument was developed by Biggs (1987) and adapted for use in the Canadian educational environment.

Harter's Scale of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom. Harter's Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in theClassroom (Harter, 1981) was used to assess students' motivational orientation toward learn­ing. The 30-item scale measures the degree to which a student's moti­vational orientation for classroom learning is determined by intrinsic interest, in contrast to an extrinsic interest i n learning. Each item was arranged i n a bi-polar fashion, for example, '"Some kids do their school-work because the teacher tells them to' but 'Other kids do their school-work to find out about a lot of things they've been wanting to know. ' " Students responded to each item by indicating "really true for me" to "sort of true for me" for one end of the pole only. These responses were scored from 1 to 4 proceding from left (one pole) to right (other pole) . Each response was summed to yield a total possible score of 30 to 120. H i g h scores are interpreted as students showing a preference for an intrinsic motivation for classroom learning.

The scale shows evidence of reliability and validity (Harter, 1981). The scale demonstrates a Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient ranging from 0.54 to 0.84 using students from grades 3 to 9. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.58 to 0.76.

Nowicki-Strickland Scale. The Nowicki-Strickland Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) is a 40-item measure of individual locus-of-control. Students responded to such items as "Are some kidsjust born lucky?" with a yes or no answer. These responses are summated to give a total possible score ranging from 0 to 40. H i g h scores are interpreted to be associated with an external orientation to control, meaning that individuals feel little control over events in their life. Conversely, a low score is associated with an internal orientation to control , meaning that individuals feel considerable control over events in their life. This scale demonstrates acceptable estimates of internal consistency (r = .81) and test-retest reliability (r = .71) (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). Also, the scale signifi­cantly correlated with the Rotter (1966) scale of locus of control using two samples of college students (r = .60 and r = . 38, p < .01).

General Self-Efficacy Scale. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982) measures general expectations of self-efficacy. The 17 items of the scale are rated on a 14-point Likert scale ranging f rom "strongly disagree" (14) to "strongly agree" (1). For example, one item was "If something looks too compli ­cated, I will not even bother to try it." The higher the resulting score, the

C o r r e l a t e s o f M e t a c o g n i t i o n '205

greater the individual's expectation of success or confidence in their abilities.

This scale was chosen as a general measure of self-efficacy because most other measures of self-efficacy are situation-specific. Sherer, et al. (1982) report a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .86 for the General Self-Efficacy scale. Construct validity was determined using cor­relational analysis to assess predicted relationships with other measures. For example, the General Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrated a negative low correlation with the Internal-External Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) (r = -.289, p < .0001), and a positive moderate correlation with the Interpersonal Competence Scale (r = .451, p < .0001).

Procedure

School district superintendents were contacted by letter to obtain per­mission to conduct the study i n their school districts. Consent forms were given to grade 12 students along with an information sheet describing the study A l l students under the age of 18 were required to have the informed consent of a parent or guardian. The instruments were admin­istered by one researcher dur ing a class to all students from whom informed consent had been received. Those students who chose not to participate were given an alternate activity relevant to their course work-Complet ion of the complete set of measures took less than 60 minutes. A l l participants were guaranteed anonymity. However, as an incentive, participants were given the opportunity to receive feedback about their performance on the instruments by providing their names on the Gen­eral Information Questionnaire. These students were guaranteed confi­dentiality of their results between the researchers and the students. Individual results were made available upon request.

Students were administered a battery of five questionnaires. They were also asked to indicate their academic average as indicated on their report card received two weeks prior to completing the questionnaires. School superintendents were reluctant to release a copy of actual student grades. It was hoped that the proximity of the reportage and the volunteering for the study would add validity to the students' report of their academic average.

R E S U L T S

The research question asked how metacognition, motivation, locus of control , and self-efficacy were related to academic average. A Pearson product-moment correlation was used to determine the relationships between these variables. The hypothesis stated that there would be a significant positive correlation between metacognition, motivation, locus of control , self-efficacy and academic average. Table 1 displays the means, range of scores, and inter-correlations for these variables. Aca-

206 J e f f r e y L a n d i n e a n d J o h n Stewart

demie average, with a mean of 73.56 is indicative of students whose aspirations involve further academic study. The measure for motivation ( M = 80.56) indicates an intrinsic motivation orientation for classroom learning. Locus of control, with a mean of 12.42 indicates a slightly external orientation meaning that students felt they had less control over events i n their lives. The mean of 86.05 for self-efficacy is interpreted to mean that students felt confident in their personal ability. Lastly, the mean score for metacognition is 106.57 indicating students' use of higher levels of metacognition i n their approach to learning.

T A B L E 1

Means, Ranges and Correlations of Study Variables (n = 108)

Means Range Correlations

Females Males Total 1 2 3 4 5

1. Academic Average 75.77 71.13 73.56 50- 98 .42* -.27f -.38* .24f

2. Motivation 79.98 81.10 80.56 45-117 -.42* -.61* .24f

3. Locus of

Control 12.12 12.70 12.42 2- 24 .41* -.20

4. Self-Efficacy 90.81 81.62 86.05 19-189 -.29*

5. Metacognition 108.73 104.57 106.57 69-145 t p < .01 * p< .001

Correlation coefficients showed that the variables were all significantly correlated with academic average. Scores on metacognition correlated with academic average (r = .24, p < .01) i n a positive direction. Motiva­tion was positively correlated with average (r = .42, p < .001), and lo­cus of control (r = -.27, p < .01) and self-efficacy (r = -.38, p < .001) were significantly inversely correlated with academic average.

The data was analysed relative to age and gender. As expected, neither academic average, motivation, locus of control, self-efficacy, nor meta­cognition correlated with age (See Table 1). O n l y academic average showed a low, but significant correlation with gender (r = .23, p < .01), with females performing at a higher level than males.

A standard multiple regression was performed with academic average as the dependent, or criterion variable and metacognition, motivation, locus of control, and self-efficacy as the independent or predictor vari­ables. Table 2 displays the correlations.

Standard regressions were performed on all four variables indepen­dently with average as the dependent variable. The researchers wanted to determine the amount of variance each variable contributed separately to academic average. Metacognition, [F(\, 106) = 6.19, p < .05], con-

C o r r e l a t e s o f M e t a c o g n i t i o n 207

T A B L E 2 Standard Multiple Regression for Motivation, Locus of Control,

Self-Efficacy Variables on Academic Average (n = 108)

Variables / 2 3 r

Academic Average (DV) B ß I

1. Motivation .42 0.19 0.28 2.42* 2. Locus of Control -.42 -.27 -0.16 -0.07 -0.75 3. Self-Efficacy -.61 .41 -.38 -0.04 -0.15 -1.30 4. Metacognition .24 .20 -.29 .24 0.07 0.11 1.22

Note: *p < .05. R2 = .22. A d j R2 = .19. T h e f u l l r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n p r o v i d e d a s tat is t ical ly s i g n i f i c a n t m e a n s o f p r e d i c t i n g a c a d e m i c average , (4,103) - 7.19, p < . 001] .

tributed 5% (R2 = .055) of the variability in predicting academic average. Motivation, [F(l, 106) = 23.12, p< .001], contributed 18% (R2 = .179) of the variance, locus of control , [ F ( l , 106) = 8.44, p< .01], contributed 7% (R2 = .074) of the variance, and self-efficacy, [F(\, 106) = 17.55, p< .001], contributed 14% {R2 = .142) of the variance. Altogether, 22% (19% adjusted) of the variability on academic average was predicted by know­ing scores on the four independent variables. W h e n taken together, only one of the independent variables, motivation, contributed significantly to the variance i n predicting academic average suggesting that it is an important variable to consider with regard to student learning outcomes.

D I S C U S S I O N

The mean score, and the range of scores for academic average, demon­strated considerable variability which one would l ikely find among twelfth grade students taking university preparatory English classes. Raw scores for the motivation, locus of control , and self-efficacy variables revealed a trend for students to rate themselves toward the middle to high end of the scales describing themselves as intrinsically motivated, having an external locus of control , and having high levels of self-efficacy. Based on the literature (Garcia & Pintr ich, 1991; Corno, et al. , 1982; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Vermunt 1987) these characteristics indicate that this sample of students should be academically successful in com­pleting their twelfth year i n school since an overall average of 50% is the m i n i m u m requirement. The mean metacognition score, a measure of students general use of all three approaches, was very close to the midpoint , and the sizable range revealed a wide diversity in subject's general use of metacognition. This may suggest that while some students seem to use metacognitive approaches, a great number also probably use them occasionally or not at all (Biggs, 1987).

208 J e f f r e y L a n d i r i e a n d J o h n Stewart

The correlation data showed little relation between gender and meta­cognition as was predicted i n the literature (Biggs, 1987; N o l e n , Meece, & Blumenfeld, 1986; Otero, et al. , 1992). It was also expected that there would be no significant relationship between gender and locus of control (Rotter, 1966; Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) or self-efficacy (Owen & Froman, 1992), and the correlations supported this. While the literature regarding relationships between gender and motivation was contradic­tory (Biggs, 1987; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984), the correlational data i n this study suggests that gender is not significantly related to motivation. The only variable that correlated significantly with gender was academic average where females had significantly higher averages than males. Aspirations of male subjects i n this sample may affect academic average as scholastic success may not be an important variable to their significant male role models, who h o l d blue collar jobs. Females may view their vocational success i n progressing to higher levels of education. Age was also not a significant factor. This result would be expected due to the sample being f rom one grade level.

The key relationship i n this research suggested that there would be a significant positive relationship between general use of metacognition and academic success (Biggs, 1987). The resulting significant positive correlation, albeit low, between the composite metacognition scores on the L P Q and the students' indication of their overall academic average, supported this idea. This positive relationship suggests that as use of metacognition increases, regardless of the approach, academic average increases. That is, while some of the students scoring high on the compo­site metacognitive scale may be scoring high on surface approaches and others on deep or achieving approaches, all of them seem to be benefit­ting f rom making some use of metacognitive skills (Bergan, 1990; Flavell, 1979; N o l e n , et al. , 1986; Vermunt, 1987; Wil l iamson, 1991; Wittrock, 1983)

The data here supports a positive relationship between use of metacog­nit ion, and motivation, and self-efficacy. That is, students' use of meta­cognitive strategies is significantly related to intrinsic motivation and high levels of self-efficacy. However, the lack of a positive correlation between metacognition and locus of control was not in keeping with the literature. This result was similar to that of Weed, Ryan, & Day (1984). In the present study, the lack of a significant positive correlation between metacognition and locus of control may be partially attributable to other variables uncontrol led for i n this study, such as parental support, apti­tudes, and aspirations.

O n e of the implications of this research for counsellors and teachers involves their work with under-achieving students. Counsellors should consider a number of variables inc luding use of metacognition, motiva­tion, self-efficacy and locus of control when working with students who

C o r r e l a t e s o f M e t a c o g n i t i o n 209

wish to improve their performance on teacher tests. Counsel l ing focused on these variables will help students approach their learning tasks with skills and attitudes which promote academic success. With an improved ability to monitor and execute their learning, the students will experi­ence an increase in their perceived levels of self-efficacy and locus of control and are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation to their classroom learning. School counsellors and/or teachers could model metacognitive strategies as a component i n their teaching. Such model­l ing will illustrate for students how to analyse a learning task and how to monitor and execute its task requirements. Such model l ing could be a significant learning experience for students particularly if counsellors and/or teachers explain the process and give feedback to students about the appropriateness of how they applied the strategies. In addition, when consulting with teachers and parents, counsellors could stress the role that metacognition can play i n enhancing students' use of study habits and/or skills (Stewart and Landine , 1995). Students should be taught to go beyond the use of such techniques of surveying, questioning, and reviewing. They should assess their motivation for academic success, their current knowledge associated with the academic task at hand, what skills and tactics would be most helpful in accomplishing that task, and what level of success they want to achieve. Such components of metacog­nit ion would help students to improve their self-awareness and enable them to become self-regulated learners.

There are several methodological limitations inherent i n this study. These limitations include the lack of anonymity of students who re­quested feedback, the use of self-report and the possible distorted values in the regression analysis due to the relatively small sample size. Since the researchers had to rely on students' self-report to determine academic average as well as offer feedback o n student performance, it is possible that the correlations might be spurious and reflect a third factor media­tion related to a number of possible personality variables such as attitude, aspirations for success, self-esteem, or need for approval. Whi le it was not possible to use the actual grades as reported by the school, efforts should be made in future research to include a measure of academic perform­ance that is not based on students' self-report. Additionally, the relatively small sample size may have lead to the possible distorted values i n the regression analysis. Consequently, these results must be interpreted with caution unti l further studies using larger samples are completed.

There are two important aspects which future studies need to address. The first is the continued investigation of what variables make up the learning model , one of interest to teachers and school counsellors. The significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and academic suc­cess found in this and other studies warrants further examination. The fact that motivation was the only variable i n this study to contribute a

210 J e f f r e y L a n d i n e a n d J o h n Stewart

significant amount to the variability i n academic average, increases its importance to the research on learning. In addition, other variables such as prior knowledge (Bergan, 1990), ability, and environmental factors would be important inclusions i n future research.

The second area of research involves the metacognitive variable. More information is necessary regarding its development and its role i n self-regulation. Future studies should address the role of metacognition and its interaction with other intervention strategies to produce lasting be­haviour change. Such studies should employ quasi-experimental and experimental designs, using interventions coupled with the use of meta­cognition. The results of such studies would enhance our understanding of how personal variables such as motivation, locus of control, self-esteem, and metacognition interact with other intervention strategies to enable a person to be self-regulated, one who is able to monitor his or her behaviour and respond appropriately according to the context.

References B a b b i e , E . (1973) . Survey Research Methods. B e l m o n t , C A : W a d s w o r t h P u b l i s h i n g C o . B a n d u r a , A . (1977) . Sel f -ef f icacy: T o w a r d a u n i f y i n g t h e o r y o f b e h a v i o r a l c h a n g e . Psychological

Review, 84, 191-215.

B e r g a n , J . (1990) . C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y to s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g y . I n T. B . G u t k i n & C . R . R e y n o l d s ( E d s . ) , The handbook of school psychology ( 2 n d e d . ) . ( p p . 126-42) . N e w

Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & Sons .

B i g g s , J. B . (1985) . T h e r o l e o f m e t a l e a m i n g i n s tudy processes . British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212.

B i g g s , J o h n B . ( 1987) . Student approaches to learning and studying. M e l b o u r n e : A u s t r a l i a n C o u n c i l f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h .

B o e k a e r t s , M o n i q u e . (1986) . M o t i v a t i o n i n t h e o r i e s o f l e a r n i n g . International Journal of Educa­tional Research, 10, 129-41.

B o n d y , E . (1984, M a r c h / A p r i l ) . T h i n k i n g a b o u t t h i n k i n g : E n c o u r a g i n g c h i l d r e n ' s use o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e processes . Childhood Education, 234-38 .

C a m s , A . & C a m s , M . ( 1991 ). T e a c h i n g s t u d y s k i l l s , c o g n i t i v e strategies, a n d m e t a c o g n i t i v e ski l ls t h r o u g h s e l f - d i a g n o s e d l e a r n i n g styles. School Counselor, 38(5), 341-46.

C l i f f o r d , M . M . , C h o u , F. C , M a o , K.., L a n , W . Y , & K u o , S . (1990) . A c a d e m i c r isk t a k i n g , d e v e l o p m e n t a n d e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t . Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 45-64.

C o m o , L . , C o l l i n s , K . , & C a p p e r , J . (1982, M a r c h ) . Where there's a way there's a will: self-regulating the low-achieving student. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f the A m e r i c a n E d u c a ­t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , N e w Y o r k , N Y .

D e c i , E . (1975 ) . Intrinsic motivation. N e w Y o r k : P l e n u m Press .

D e c i , E . L . , & R y a n , R . M . ( 1985) . Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in human behavior. N e w Y o r k : P l e n i u m Press .

F l a v e l l , J . (1979) . M e t a c o g n i t i o n a n d c o g n i t i v e m o n i t o r i n g : A n e w a r e a o f cog ni t iv e -d e v e l o p m e n t a l i n q u i r y . American Psychologist, 34, 907-11.

G a r c i a , T. & P i n t r i c h , P. R . (1991 , A u g u s t ) . The effects of autonomy on motivation, use of learning strategies, and performance in the college classroom. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the A n n u a l C o n v e n t i o n o f the A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A .

G o r r e l l . J . ( 1990 ) . S o m e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f self -eff icacy r e s e a r c h to s e l f - c o n c e p t theory . Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 73-81.

C o r r e l a t e s o f M e t a c o g n i t i o n 211

G r o t e , G . F., & J a m e s , L . R . (1991 ) . T e s t i n g b e h a v i o r a l c o n s i s t e n c y a n d c o h e r e n c e w i t h the S i t u a t i o n - R e s p o n s e M e a s u r e o f A c h i e v e m e n t M o t i v a t i o n . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 655-91.

H a r r i s o n , C . ( 1991 ) . M e t a c o g n i t i o n a n d m o t i v a t i o n . Reading Improvement, 28(\), 35-39.

H a r t e r , S. ( 1981 ) . A n e w s e l f - r e p o r t scale o f i n t r i n s i c versus e x t r i n s i c o r i e n t a t i o n i n the class­r o o m : M o t i v a t i o n a l a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a l c o m p o n e n t s . Developmental Psychology, /7(3) , 300-12.

J a c o b s , J . E . , & P a r i s , S. G . ( 1987 ) . C h i l d r e n ' s m e t a c o g n i t i o n a b o u t r e a d i n g : issues i n d e f i n i t i o n , m e a s u r e m e n t , a n d i n s t r u c t i o n . Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-78.

J o h n s o n , D a v i d W . (1979 ) . Educational Psychology. E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c .

K u r t z , B . E . , & B o r k o w s k i , F. G . ( 1984 ) . C h i l d r e n ' s m e t a c o g n i t i o n : E x p l o r i n g r e l a t i o n s a m o n g k n o w l e d g e , process , a n d m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335-54.

L i n d n e r , R. , & H a r r i s , B . ( 1992) . The development and evaluation of a self-regulated learning inventory and its implications for instructor-independent instruction. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the A n n u a l M e e t ­i n g o f the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A .

N o l e n , S., M e e c e , J . , & B l u m e n f e l d , P. (1986, A p r i l ) . Development of a scale to assess students' knowledge of the utility of learning strategies. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the m e e t i n g o f the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A .

N o w i c k i , S., & S t r i c k l a n d , B . (1973 ) . A l o c u s o f c o n t r o l scale f o r c h i l d r e n . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-54.

O t e r o , J . , H o p k i n s , K . , & C a m p a n a r i o , J . (1992) . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e ­m e n t a n d m e t a c o g n i t i v e c o m p r e h e n s i o n m o n i t o r i n g a b i l i t y o f S p a n i s h s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s tudents . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 419-29.

O w e n , S. V . , & F r o m a n , R . D . (1992 ) . A c a d e m i c self -eff icacy i n at-risk e l e m e n t a r y s t u d e n t s . Journal of Research in Education, 2, 3-7.

P i n t r i c h , P., & D e G r o o t , E . (1990 ) . M o t i v a t i o n a l a n d s e l f - r e g u l a t e d l e a r n i n g c o m p o n e n t s o f c l a s s r o o m a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e . Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Rot ter , J . (1966) . G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e ­m e n t . Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

S c h n e i d e r , W . , B o r k o w s k i , J . G . , K u r t z , B . , & K e r w i n , K . (1986) . M e t a m e m o r y a n d m o t i v a t i o n : A c o m p a r i s o n o f strategy use a n d p e r f o r m a n c e i n G e r m a n a n d A m e r i c a n c h i l d r e n . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 315-36.

Sherer , M . , M a d d u x , J . , M e r c a n d a n t e , B . , P r e n t i c e - D u n n , S., J a c o b s , B , . & R o g e r s , R. (1982) . T h e self-eff icacy scale : C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d v a l i d a t i o n . Psychological Reports, 51, 663-7J .

Stewart , J . , & L a n d i n e , J . ( 1995 ) . S t u d y sk i l l s f r o m a m e t a c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e . Guidance áf Counselling, 11, 16-20.

S t i p e k , D e b o r a h . (1982, J u l y ) . Motivating students to learn: A lifelong perspective. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the S y m p o s i u m , " T h e s t u d e n t ' s r o l e i n l e a r n i n g , " o f the N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n o n E x c e l l e n c e

i n E d u c a t i o n , S a n D i e g o , C A .

T z u r i e l , D . , & H a y w o o d , H . C . (1985 ) . L o c u s o f c o n t r o l a n d c h i l d - r e a r i n g prac t i ces i n

i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d a n d e x t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d c h i l d r e n . Psychological Reports, 57, 887-94.

U g u r o g l u , M . E . , & W a l b e r g , H . J . ( 1986 ) . P r e d i c t i n g a c h i e v e m e n t a n d m o t i v a t i o n . Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 19, 1-12.

V e r m u n t . J . ( 1 9 8 7 , A p r i l ) . Learning styles and self-regulation. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the C o n f e r e n c e o f

the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D C .

W a t k i n s , D . , & H a t t i e , J . ( 1992 ) . T h e mot ive -s t ra tegy c o n g r u e n c e m o d e l r e v i s i t e d . Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 17, 194-98.

W e e d , K . , R y a n , E . , & Day, J . (1984, A p r i l ) . Motivationaland metacognitive aspects of strategy use and transfer. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the M e e t i n g o f the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , N e w O r l e a n s .

W i l l i a m s o n , M . (1991) . Implementing metacognitive processing in the mathematics classroom. U n ­p u b l i s h e d master ' s thesis , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B C .

W i t t r o c k , M . (1983) . S t u d e n t s ' t h o u g h t processes . I n M . C . W i t t r o c k ( E d . ) , Handbook of Research on Teaching. ( 3 r d ed. ) ( p p . 297-314) . N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y .

212 J e f f r e y L a n d i n e a n d J o h n Stewart

About the Authors M r . J e f f r e y L a n d i n e w o r k s as a s c h o o l c o u n s e l l o r / t e a c h e r i n D i s t r i c t #17, O r o m o c t o , N e w B r u n s w i c k . H i s interests c e n t r e o n m i d d l e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n a n d the var iab les w h i c h i n f l u e n c e t h e i r l e a r n i n g a n d a c a d e m i c success.

D r . J o h n Stewart is a P r o f e s s o r i n the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n at the U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w B r u n s w i c k , F r e d e r i c t o n C a m p u s . H i s r e s e a r c h interests i n c l u d e c o u n s e l l i n g theory , c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t a n d the a p p l i c a t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y to v o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s .

A d d r e s s C o r r e s p o n d e n c e to : D r . J o h n Stewart , F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w B r u n s w i c k , F r e d e r i c t o n , N B E 3 B 5 A 3 .