Self-regulated learning and performance calibration among elementary physical education students

Self-regulated learning and performance calibrationamong elementary physical education students

Athanasios Kolovelonis & Marios Goudas &Irini Dermitzaki & Anastasia Kitsantas

Received: 19 February 2012 /Revised: 29 April 2012 /Accepted: 27 May 2012 /Published online: 15 June 2012# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media BV2012

Abstract This study examined the effectiveness of a social-cognitive training model of self-regulation on students’ dribbling performance, calibration accuracy, and motivationalbeliefs. Participants were 120 fifth and sixth graders. Students who sequentially experiencedemulative and self-control practice setting either process or performance goals at theemulation or at the self-control level improved their dribbling performance and motivationalbeliefs from pre- to post-test. Students overestimated their performance except for those inthe process goal condition who underestimated it. These findings support the effectivenessof this training model and are discussed with reference to the self-regulation and perfor-mance calibration development in physical education.

Keywords Self-regulated learning . Emulative practice . Self-control practice . Calibration .

Physical education

The development of effective training approaches to promote self-regulated learning in sportand physical education contexts is of great interest. Learning motor and sport skills is anessential goal for physical education classes. Childhood and pre-adolescence is considered asensitive period for mastering fundamental motor skills and introducing students to a widevariety of sport skills (Gallahue & Donnelly 2003). To maximize this potential, physicaleducators should select the most appropriate instructional approaches for teaching studentsskills in physical education. Thus, the current study attempts to examine the effectiveness of

Eur J Psychol Educ (2013) 28:685–701DOI 10.1007/s10212-012-0135-4

A. Kolovelonis (*) :M. GoudasDepartment of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Thessaly,421 00 Karies, Trikala, Greecee-mail: [email protected]

I. DermitzakiDepartment of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton & Fillelinon, 382 21 Volos, Greece

A. KitsantasCollege of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive,Fairfax, VA, USA

a multilevel training model of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman 2000) as an instructionalapproach for teaching motor and sport skills to elementary students. Self-regulated learningis an active, self-directive process whereby students monitor and evaluate their cognition,motivation, affect, behavior, and environment to achieve their goals (Boekaerts 1996;Efklides 2011; Efklides et al. 2002; Zimmerman 2000).

Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005) argue that students can be trained to self-regulate thelearning of a skill effectively when they proceed through four sequential levels, namely,observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation. At the observation level, studentscapture the key elements needed for performing the new skill by watching a model performand listening to his or her verbal instructions. At the emulation level, students practice theskill receiving social feedback (e.g., from their teachers) that helps them to correct potentialerrors and form appropriate performance standards. They try to emulate the general move-ment pattern of the model in order to incorporate it into their personal movement repertoires.At the self-control level, students practice the skill setting goals (e.g., focusing on thetechnique of the skill) and self-monitor their performance using techniques like self-recording which can capture performance information (e.g., number of successful trials)and help students to compare their performances with the performance standards. At the self-regulation level, students have mastered the skill and can adapt and use it in changingconditions, developing their own distinctive styles of performing. The sequential progressthrough these four levels results in optimal learning.

Furthermore, according to the multi-level training approach of self-regulated learning,student motivational beliefs play a key role in the development of self-regulated learning(Zimmerman & Kitsantas 2005). An observer’s motivation during the observation level ofsocial cognitive model is enhanced vicariously as the student observes the model. Socialfeedback is the primary source of motivation during the emulation level which not onlyinforms students about their improvement, but may also function as positive reinforcementincreasing their feelings of self-satisfaction (Smith 2006), enjoyment, and persistence(Schmidt & Wrisberg 2008). At the self-control level, the source of motivation is the self-reactions derived from achieving process standards whereas at the self-regulation levelstudents’ enjoyment of participating in a task for the sake of learning is a critical factorfor maintaining an activity (Goudas et al. 2000) as well as their level of efficacy beliefs.

What distinguishes Zimmerman’s theoretical model from other models of self-regulatedlearning is that it includes motivational beliefs and cognitive processes in a cyclical feedbackloop. In the case of athletics, learners engaging in a self-reflective circle use motoricoutcomes to modify and guide subsequent recurrent efforts. Because of its cyclical nature,this model seeks to explain motor learning as a continuing process of growth and compe-tence. Therefore, in this study we adopted Zimmerman’s four-level training model toexamine the development of self-regulated learning in physical education.

A number of research studies have examined the effectiveness of the social cognitive modelof self-regulated learning development on student’s learning and motivation (Kitsantas et al.2000; Kolovelonis et al. 2010, 2011; 2012b; Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997). For example,Kitsantas et al. (2000) found that the observational learning and social feedback had a positiveeffect on girls’ dart-throwing performance and their self-reported self-efficacy, intrinsic interest,and satisfaction. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997) found that girls who set a process goal at theself-control level and then shifted to an outcome goal at the self-regulation level displayedhigher dart-throwing performance, and reported higher self-efficacy, satisfaction, and intrinsicinterest compared to girls in the other goal groups, who in turn surpassed the only-practicecontrol group. Self-recording had an additive positive effect on performance, self-efficacy, andsatisfaction. Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002) found that expert volleyball athletes displayed

686 A. Kolovelonis et al.

more frequently the use of self-regulatory processes (e.g., better goals, strategy use, self-monitoring, higher self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic interest, and self-satisfaction) than eithernon-experts or novices when they were studied regarding overhand serving skill during apractice episode.

Kolovelonis et al. (2010) found that sixth-grade students who received social feedback at theemulation level and then set process goals and self-recorded their performance at the self-control level displayed higher dart-throwing performance compared to students in the otherexperimental groups. Moreover, fifth-grade students who experienced one or both of these self-regulatory levels surpassed control group students. Furthermore, sixth-grade students whoreceived social feedback at the emulation level, and those who practiced with process goalsand self-recording at the self-control level reported higher satisfaction and intrinsic motivationrespectively, compared to control group students. In a subsequent study, Kolovelonis et al.(2011) found that self-recording had a positive effect on students’ dart-throwing performanceand setting combined process and performance goals was equally effective with setting onlyprocess or performance goals at the self-control level.

Recently, Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) examined the effects of setting process or perfor-mance goals and self-recording at the self-control level after students had experiencedemulative practice, adopting a pre- to post-test design, involving repeated demonstrationsof the skill, employing teaching and testing in small groups, and using a common sport skill(i.e., basketball dribble). They found that fifth- and sixth-grade students who received socialfeedback and observed repeated demonstrations at the observation and emulation levels andthen set process or performance goals and self-recorded their performance at the self-controllevel improved their dribbling performance from pre- to post-test. Moreover, students whomissed emulative practice but experienced self-control practice setting goals and self-recording improved their dribbling performance from pre- to post-test. These results sup-ported the effectiveness of the four-level training model in more natural teaching conditions(i.e., practicing in groups) in physical education.

The current study

This study was designed to expand the current research base on the topic of self-regulatedlearning in physical education by examining the effects of the practice at the different self-regulatory levels on students’ performance calibration. Moreover, expanding previousresearch (Kitsantas et al. 2000; Kolovelonis et al. 2010, 2011; Zimmerman & Kitsantas1997) and replicating Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) study the teaching context of applying thefour-level training model was expanded from single subject to small group design. Further-more, this study expanded previous research by introducing process and performance goalsat the emulation level.

The four-level training model aims to be an instructional approach for teaching motor andsports skills in the sport and physical education contexts. Thus, evidence regarding theeffectiveness of this training model in natural teaching conditions is warranted. However,such evidence is limited because previous research involved students mainly at the individ-ual level (i.e., participating in the study out of the physical education class). However,teaching a group of students is a more complicated process compared to teaching individualstudents. For example, observing and providing feedback to a group of students is moredemanding process compared to providing feedback to a single student. Thus, this study,replicating Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) study, employed students in small groups to furthervalidate the effectiveness of this training model as an instructional approach in real-life

Self-regulated learning and performance calibration 687

teaching conditions in physical education. Moreover, this study expanded previous researchintroducing process and performance goals at the emulation level. During emulation levelstudents practice a skill to acquire the performance standards demonstrated by an expertmodel (Zimmerman 2000). In this study, performance standards were also assigned tostudents in the form of process goals to guide their emulative practice. Moreover, weexamined the effects of introducing performance goals (i.e., improving personal perfor-mance) at the emulation level. Both types of goals are self-referenced and thus they cancontribute to the establishment of a task-oriented learning environment.

Furthermore, this study examined the effects of students’ practice at different levels ofself-regulated learning on their performance calibration. Although the aforementionedresearch provides support for the effectiveness of the social cognitive training model ofself-regulated learning development (Zimmerman 2000), a few studies have examined therole of calibration within this training approach. Therefore, a novel aspect of this study is thecontribution to the metacognitive monitoring literature in the field of physical educationshowing how calibration interconnects with Zimmerman’s cyclical feedback model. Self-regulation entails more than metagognition. In fact, the second major category of theperformance phase in Zimmerman’s model is self-observation, which refers to metacognitivemonitoring of one's performance, including the conditions that surround it, and the effectsthat it generates. The present study highlights the importance of this metacognitive dimen-sion of self-regulation. Novice learners who fail to set process-oriented goals, they are oftenoverwhelmed metacognitively by the amount of information that they need to self-monitorand as a result they cannot adjust their motoric strategies optimally. Thus, the present studysought to make a unique contribution to the literature examining the accuracy of outcomeevaluation by learners who are instructed to adapt process oriented goals and engage inmonitoring in comparison to learners who do not.

Calibration refers to the degree to which a person’s perception of performance corre-sponds with his or her actual performance (Keren 1991). Accurate monitoring has beenshown to lead to improved self-regulation that, in turn, translates into improved performance(Thiede et al. 2003). There are a variety of methods used to measure calibration includingdifference scores and calibration curves. In the difference score approaches, two indices areusually used: (a) the calibration bias, which is the difference between estimated and actualperformance, indicating the direction of the calibration, and (b) the calibration accuracy,which is the absolute value of the bias score, reflecting the magnitude of calibration error(Hacker et al. 2008). Calibration has important implications for metacognitive controlprocesses and self-regulation (Efklides & Misailidi 2010), motivation, and learning (Schunk& Pajares 2004). In particular, students who overestimate their capabilities may attemptchallenging tasks and fail, which would decrease their subsequent motivation. Those whounderestimate their capabilities may avoid challenging tasks, thereby limiting their potentialdevelopment of necessary skills (Schunk & Pajares 2004). Previous efforts to improvecalibration accuracy have shown mixed results (Hacker et al. 2008). Some research hasreported improvements in participants’ performance calibration (Nietfeld & Schraw 2002),but some other do not (Bol & Hacker 2001; Bol et al. 2005). Zimmerman et al. (2008) foundthat an intervention designed to improve students’ self-reflection did improve the accuracyof students’ self-monitoring of their problem-solving performance. Thus, to become self-regulated learners, students need to accurately monitor their ongoing cognitive states andprocesses, and to use the information obtained from such monitoring to regulate thosecognitive processes (Hacker et al. 2008).

In sport and physical education calibration research is limited. Adult tennis players(Fogarty & Ross 2007) and golfers (Fogarty & Else 2005) were well calibrated on easier


tasks and overconfident on more difficult tasks. No study to our knowledge has examinedthe effects of using the four-level training model in students’ performance calibration.Performance calibration may have implications regarding students’ skills, goals, and moti-vational beliefs, factors that are inherently entailed in the four-level training model. Inparticular, learning motor and sports skills is distinguished from learning cognitive skillsbecause immediate feedback is usually provided in the form of success or failure. Thus,calibration becomes an integral part of learning the task and environmental cues are usuallyavailable to ensure the accuracy of calibration (Horgan 1992). Furthermore, poor-calibratedstudents compared to well-calibrated ones are unlikely to learn from their mistakes, and willprobably suffer frustration, and lack of motivation to continue to strive for the highest levelsof performance (Horgan 1992). Well-calibrated students are aware of the levels of perfor-mance and this can help them to set appropriate goals to guide their self-directed learning(Fogarty & Else 2005).

The aim of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of the sequential practice atthe observation, emulation, and the self-control levels of self-regulated learning develop-ment on students’ performance and motivation. Furthermore, we examined the effects ofpractice in different levels of self-regulatory development on students’ performance calibra-tion. We hypothesized that students who practiced dribbling sequentially from the emulationto the self-control level setting process or performance goals either at the emulation level orat the self-control level would surpass the control group students in dribbling performance.A similar pattern of results was expected for students’ satisfaction, enjoyment, and perfor-mance calibration.

Method

Participants

Participants were 120 Greek students (50 boys and 70 girls, Mage010.99, SDage00.60) whoattended three fifth grade (60 students, Mage010.50, SDage00.31) and three sixth grade (60students, Mage011.48, SDage00.33) physical education classes from two elementary schoolslocated in a medium-sized city in central Greece. Students participated in the study volun-tarily. No student refused to participate. Students had little previous experience in thebasketball dribble and none of them participated in basketball club out of school or inrelated sports extracurricular activities. Twenty-four students (four boys and eight girls fromsixth grade and six boys and six girls from fifth grade) were randomly assigned to each ofthe five groups using the proportional stratified sampling method so the same number ofboys and girls from each grade could be included in the five groups.

Measures

Basketball performance Students had to dribble among five cones that had 3.05 m distancebetween each other. The distance between the first cone and the starting line was also3.05 m. The test lasted 30 s and each student’s score was the total number of cones that he orshe dribbled successfully. Students were asked not to touch the cones during dribbling, tochange the dribbling hand in each cone and to collect the ball by themselves in the case oflosing its control. High test–retest reliability (r, .95) has been reported for this test (Barrow &McGee 1979).


Satisfaction Students’ satisfaction with their dribbling skill was evaluated via the followingsingle question: “How satisfied are you with your dribbling skill?” Students responded on ascale, ranging from 0 to 100 gradually increasing by 10 points with additional marks forevery 5 points. The verbal descriptors of “not satisfied”, “somewhat satisfied”, “prettysatisfied”, and “very satisfied” were used for each of the following scores of 10, 40, 70,and 100, respectively.

Enjoyment Students’ enjoyment from their practice in dribble was evaluated with the question“Howmuch did you enjoy yourself during practice in dribble?” Students rated their enjoyment ona scale ranging from 0 to 100 gradually increasing by 10 points with additional marks for every 5points. Below the points of 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 the following written descriptions “not atall”, “a little”, “somewhat”, “pretty”, “much”, and “very much” were respectively provided.

Calibration Prior to the dribble post-test students were asked the question: “How manycones will you dribble in the post-test?” Two calibration indices were computed, the bias andthe accuracy score (Hacker et al. 2008). Calibration bias was computed as students’estimated performance score minus the actual performance. Positive bias indicates overes-timation of performance and negative bias underestimation. The absolute values of the biasscores resulted in the accuracy index that reflects the magnitude of calibration error. Valuescloser to zero indicate higher calibration accuracy.

Goal setting manipulation check question After the end of the practice students were asked thequestion: “Which was your goal during practice in dribble?” Students’ responses were recordedby the experimenter and were coded by two independent coders in four categories: assignedprocess goal (e.g., “fingers-wrist”), assigned performance goal (e.g., “to dribble 20 cones”),general improvement (e.g., “to improve my dribbling skill”), and comparison (e.g., “to surpassmy classmates”). Kappa analysis revealed a perfect intercoder agreement (Landis &Koch 1977).

Procedure/design

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Greek Ministry of Education,Lifelong Learning, and Religious Affairs and the school principals. Students participatedin the study voluntarily after a parental consent was obtained. They practiced in groups offour, in the school gym, with the presence of the experimenter who was a physical educationteacher blind to the aims of the study. Prior the study, the experimenter was trained inimplementing all the experimental conditions in five 1-h practice sessions. Students weretold that the purpose of the study was the improvement of their dribbling skill.

Task, materials, and drills The dribbling task was selected because it is a commonsport skill taught in physical education. Two tracks with five cones each wereconstructed, similar to that used in the dribbling test, and two size five basketballswere used. The first practice session included two drills: (a) dribbling in a distance of15 m and return in the starting line dribbling with the opposite hand, and (b)dribbling among the five cones back and forth using both hands. In the secondpractice session, students had to dribble among the five cones continually in trialsof 30 s. In each drill, two students practiced the dribble and two rested.


Experimental conditions Five groups were included in the study: (a) group 1, with socialfeedback and repeated modeling in the first practice session and process goal and self-recording in the second practice session, (b) group 2, with social feedback and repeatedmodeling in the first practice session and performance goal and self-recording in the secondpractice session, (c) group 3, with process goal, social feedback, and repeated modeling inthe first practice session and process goal and self-recording in the second practice session,(d) group 4, with performance goal, social feedback, and repeated modeling in the firstpractice session and performance goal and self-recording in the second practice session, and(e) group 5, a practice-only control group.

Procedure Initially, students were informed about the procedure of the study. Next, studentswere pre-tested in the dribbling test after they were informed about the scoring system andperformed a trial run. In the next 3 min, all students were provided with oral instructionsregarding the basic motor elements of dribbling which consisted of the “fingers-wrist”, “dribblelow”, and “low and fast in crossover” (Paye 2000; Wissel 2004). Then, the experimentermodeled the dribble twice. First, he repeated the verbal instructions and simultaneouslymodeled each dribbling subskill in slow motion helping students to focus on the key dribblingelements. Then, he modeled the dribbling among the cones in regular motion. All students,regardless of the group, received the same oral instructions and observed the dribblingdemonstration that represented the observational level to prevent potential bias due to differ-ential exposure to this first level of self-regulation development. Next, all students practiced thedribble for 16 min. The practice session was divided in two consecutive sessions of 8 min eachwhich corresponded to the practice at the emulation and the self-control level.

In the first practice session, groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 students practiced the dribble receivingsocial feedback which included positive affirmative responses for correct performance(e.g., “you dribbled using your fingers and your wrist to absorb the force of the ball”), positiveverbal reinforcements for their progress and for continuing hard work (e.g., “good work, welldone, keep working”), and performance reminders for the proper dribbling (e.g., “remember todribble low”). Moreover, during emulative practice students observed two additional dribblingdemonstrations. Performance reminders and demonstrations were provided to students at grouplevel, positive affirmative responses individually, and verbal reinforcements either individuallyor at group level following a specific schedule so that all students to receive the same qualityand quantity of feedback and observe the same dribbling demonstrations. Students wereprovided with feedback more frequently in the beginning of the practice and less frequentlytowards the end of the practice.

Prior to the first practice session groups 3 and 4 students were asked to set specific goalsfor their practice. In particular, group 3 students received instructions to set the process goalof performing correctly two basic elements of dribbling (“fingers-wrist” and “dribble low”).These students were not told their pre-test dribbling scores to reduce the possibility to setperformance goals by themselves. Group 4 students were informed about their scores in thedribbling pre-test. Then, each student was assigned a performance goal of 20 % improve-ment in relation to his or her pre-test score, rounding up the next whole number. Pilot testingshowed that students of the same age and dribbling experience improved their scores in thedribbling test on average 20 %, after receiving the same experimental treatment. Groups 1and 2 students were not assigned goals for the first practice session.

In the second practice session, group 1 students received instructions to set the sameprocess goal with group 3 students (i.e., to perform correctly the two basic elements of


“fingers-wrist” and “dribble low”). These students were not told their pre-test dribblingscores to reduce the possibility to set performance goals by themselves. Moreover, they wereasked, after each trial, to self-record their performance regarding the two dribbling elements,using a three-level self-recording scale with the following symbols: (√) when dribbling wasconsistent with the criterion, (+) when there was a need for improvement, and (–) whendribbling was not consistent with the criterion.

Group 2 students were informed about their scores in the dribbling pre-test. Then, eachstudent was assigned a performance goal of 20 % improvement in relation to his or her pre-testscore, rounding up the next whole number. Moreover, students were asked, after each trial, torecord the number of cones they had successfully dribbled, using a self-recording card.

Group 3 students were reminded about the process goals that were assigned in the firstpractice session and were provided instructions to self-record their dribbling performance usingthe three-level self-recording scale. Group 4 students were reminded about the performancegoals that were assigned in the first practice session. Furthermore, they were asked to self-record the number of the cones they had successfully dribbled, using a self-recording card.

To ensure that students in goal groups would adopt the assigned goals during practice,they were asked individually before the practice to announce his/her goal to the experiment-er. Furthermore, they were reminded every 2 min regarding their goals.

Group 5 students were told to “do their best” and practiced dribbling using thesame drills, without receiving social feedback or observing additional demonstrationsand without setting goals or self-recording. After the end of the practice, all studentsanswered the goal setting manipulation check question and completed the enjoymentand calibration measures. Then, students were tested in dribbling and completed thesatisfaction measure.

Statistical analyses

Data for dribbling were analyzed with a 5 (group) × 2 (time) analysis of variance withrepeated measures on the last factor, followed by pre- to post-test comparisons within eachgroup and the interpretation of the plot (Thomas & Nelson 2001). Data for satisfaction,enjoyment, and calibration bias and accuracy were analyzed with separate analyses ofvariance following by Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. Effect sizes of η2 and Cohen’s d werealso calculated (Cohen 1988).

Results

Means and standards deviations for all dependent variables separately for the five groups arepresented in Table 1.

Treatment fidelity

Students’ responses to goal setting manipulation check question showed that all students inthe four experimental groups reported the assigned goals, with the exception of two group 3students who reported goals of general improvement in dribble. Nineteen control groupstudents reported goals of general improvement in dribble or in basketball and five studentsreported social comparisons goals.


Basketball performance

The one-way ANOVA showed a nonsignificant difference among groups in the dribbling pre-test measure, F(4, 115)00.11, p0 .98. The 5 (group) × 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVAshowed a significant group × time interaction, F(4, 115)04.87, p<.001, η20 .17. Pre- to post-testcomparisons within each group showed a significant improvement in students’ scores in thedribbling test for group 1, p<.001, d00.96; group 2, p<.001, d00.62; group 3, p<.001, d01.14;group 4, p<.001, d01.27, but not for control group, p00.15. The interpretation of the plot(Thomas & Nelson 2001) showed that the experimental groups surpassed control group studentsin dribbling performance (Fig. 1).

Satisfaction–enjoyment

The one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference among groups in satisfaction, F(4, 115)03.68, p0 .007, η20 .11. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons showed that group 3 students reportedhigher levels of satisfaction compared to group 2 students (p0 .003, d01.11). The one-wayANOVA showed a significant difference among groups in enjoyment, F(4, 115)03.81, p0 .006,η20 .12. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons showed that group 3 students reported higher levels ofenjoyment compared to group 2 (p0 .007, d01.32) and group 4 students (p0 .015, d01.08).

Performance calibration

The one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference among groups in calibration bias,F(4, 115)06.02, p<.001, η20 .17. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons showed significant differ-ences between group 3 students and group 1 (p0 .032, d0 .96), group 2 (p<.001, d01.10),group 4 (p0 .038, d01.00), and group 5 (p0 .029, d0 .83) students. Group 3 students

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables separately for each group

Dribble Satisfaction Enjoyment Calibration

Pre-test Post-test Post-test Post-test Bias Accuracy

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Group 1 15.96 4.17 19.83a 3.88 75.46 29.40 83.96 20.55 3.00b 5.01 4.17 4.05

Group 2 16.00 4.32 19.12a 5.60 64.21b 28.54 77.33b 17.57 7.08b 10.82 7.83 10.27

Group 3 16.25 3.39 20.25a 3.60 89.04 13.64 95.54 8.48 −3.29 7.76 6.96 4.58

Group 4 16.42 4.20 21.25a 3.35 79.33 19.45 78.67b 20.30 2.88b 3.92 3.88 2.88

Group 5 16.63 5.00 17.58 6.26 82.25 22.71 86.58 21.26 3.08b 7.59 6.58 4.72

Group 1 social feedback and repeated modeling in the first practice session and process goal and self-recording in the second practice session, Group 2 social feedback and repeated modeling in the first practicesession and performance goal and self-recording in the second practice session, Group 3 process goal, socialfeedback and repeated modeling in the first practice session and process goal and self-recording in the secondpractice session,Group 4 performance goal, social feedback and repeated modeling in the first practice sessionand performance goal and self-recording in the second practice session, Group 5 control groupa Significant mean difference (p<.001) with pre-test in the dribble testb Significant mean difference (p<.001) with group 3 in the respective variable


underestimated and groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 students overestimated their performance. The one-way ANOVA showed a nonsignificant difference among groups in calibration accuracy,F(4, 115)02.15, p0 .079.

Discussion

This study examined the effectiveness of the social cognitive model of self-regulated learningdevelopment in physical education settings (Schunk & Zimmerman 1997; Zimmerman 2000).Generally, the results supported the effectiveness of this model. Students who practicedsequentially from the emulation to the self-control level of self-regulation development im-proved their dribbling performance.

Support was found for the first hypothesis. Specifically, students who experienced observa-tional learning and practiced dribbling setting process or performance goals at the emulationlevel and continued their practice with process or performance goals at the self-control levelimproved their post-test dribbling performance compared to pre-test. Similarly, students whosequentially experienced observational, emulative, and self-control practice with goals intro-duced at the self-control level improved their post-test dribbling performance compared to pre-test. In contrast, control group students did not improve dribbling performance from pre- topost-test. These results are in line with previous research that has shown that students improvedtheir skills when they progressed sequentially from the observation to the emulation level(Kitsantas et al. 2000), from the emulation to the self-control level (Kolovelonis et al. 2010),and from the self-control to the self-regulation level (Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997). Further-more, the present study replicated Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) findings providing furtherevidence regarding the effectiveness of the social cognitive model of self-regulated learningdevelopment in more natural teaching conditions in physical education. In this study, consistentwith Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) study, students participated in small groups, a condition that isclose to real-life teaching conditions in physical education. In the present and previous studies,control group students simply practiced the sport or the motor task without receiving any kindof teaching. Future research including control group students who would receive practice withteaching, although not of the self-regulated variety, would strengthen the present results.

15,00

16,00

17,00

18,00

19,00

20,00

21,00

22,00

Pre-test Post-test

Sco

re in

the

drib

blin

g te

st

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Fig. 1 Group and time interaction in the dribbling test


Students improved their dribbling performance when they proceed sequentially throughthe emulation and the self-control level. After the experience of observational learningthrough which the basic elements of the skill are cognitively acquired, students practicedthe skill in order to internalize the performance standards into their personal repertoire(Zimmerman & Schunk 2004). Performance feedback helped students to improve theirperformance and correct potential performance errors (Escarti & Guzman 1999; Schmidt& Wrisberg 2008). The social feedback gradually withdrew and students self-directed theirpractice at the self-control level setting goals and self-monitoring their performance so as tobecome self-regulated learners (Zimmerman & Kitsantas 2005).

Regarding the effectiveness of introducing goals at the emulation level, the resultsshowed that this was an effective approach. Students who set goals at the emulation levelimproved their performance from pre- to post-test and outperformed control group students.However, they did not outperform students who set the same goals at the self-control level.Actually, in terms of the effect sizes of the pre- to post-test improvements, the magnitude ofthe effects the introducing goals at the emulation level was larger than introducing goals atthe self-control level. Considering that the intervention included only a single 16-minpractice session, these results are promising regarding the introduction of goal setting atthe emulative practice as a way for enhancing learning and performance.

The results showed that the introduction of both process and performance goals at theemulation level was effective. Previous research has supported the effectiveness of process(Kitsantas & Zimmerman 1998; Zimmerman&Kitsantas 1996 1997) and performance (Bar-Eliet al. 1997) goals. Probably, these two types of goals enhanced students’ performance throughdifferent avenues. Process goals may help students to focus on technical aspects of the skill andto acquire performance standards (Zimmerman & Kitsantas 2005). On the other hand, perfor-mance goals may motivate students to exert more effort and persistence during practice(Zimmerman 2008) whichmay be translated into performance improvements under the practicewith social feedback. The pursuit of both process and performance goals may produce largereffects, combining the advantages of focusing on the technical aspect of the skill with the moredistant motivational effects of performance goals. Supportive evidence of setting combinedgoals in physical education (Kolovelonis et al. 2011) and sport settings (Filby et al. 1999) hasbeen reported. Moreover, the combined use of goal setting (process or performance goals) andinstructional self-talk (i.e., focusing on a basic step of dart-throwing) had positive effects onstudents’ performance (Kolovelonis et al. 2012a). Alternatively, the shifting from process toperformance goals (Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997) could be introduced at the self-control andnot at the self-regulation level. That is, during emulative practice students can set process goalsand practice with social feedback to acquire performance standards and at the self-control levelstudents can set performance or combined process and performance goals and self-record theirperformance. However, all these interpretations need further examination.

Regarding the adoption of the assigned goals, all students in goal groups, with theexception of two group 3 students, reported that pursued the assigned goals duringpractice. Students were asked individually to repeat the assigned goal, while duringpractice were reminded regarding their goals every 2 min. Thus, in line with previousfindings (Kolovelonis et al. 2012b), this approach seems to be successful. Moreover,almost all control group students reported general goals (e.g., “to improve mydribbling skill”). This result is consistent with previous findings that control groupstudents usually set goals by themselves in learning and performance settings (Kingston&Wilson 2009). However, these goals were general, vague and did not help control groupstudents to improve their performance, because effective goals are specific, proximal, andchallenging (Zimmerman 2008).


The second hypothesis was partially supported. Students who set a process goal for theiremulative practice and continued pursuing this goal at the self-control level reported higher levelsof satisfaction compared to students who experienced emulative practice and then set performancegoals. This result is in line with previous research with secondary girls (Kitsantas et al. 2000;Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997) but in contrast with a recent research in elementary physicaleducation (Kolovelonis et al. 2012b). However, in Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) study, process andperformance goals were set at the self-control level. It seems that the emulative practice withprocess goals adopted in the present study was beneficial for increasing students’ satisfaction.Probably this happened because students practiced longer with goals. However, this was not thecase for setting performance goals at the emulation level. Probably, process goals and socialfeedback functioned complementary and produced greater satisfaction. Students with processgoals focused on performance standards and the information received regarding their progress inacquiring these standards resulted in greater satisfaction (Smith 2006). These feelings of satisfac-tion can be beneficial for students’ subsequent learning efforts, because satisfied students directtheir actions and create self-incentives to persist in their efforts (Zimmerman 2000).

In regards to students’ motivational beliefs, students who set a process goal fortheir emulative practice and continued pursuing this goal at the self-control levelreported higher levels of enjoyment compared to students who experienced emulativeand self-control practice setting performance goals either at the emulation or at theself-control level. This finding is in line with previous research (Kitsantas et al. 2000;Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997). However, Kolovelonis et al. (2012b) found nodifference in enjoyment between students who set process and performance goals atthe self-control level. Probably the longer practice with process goals in the presentstudy produces larger effects. It has been proposed that students who are givenfeedback during practice express greater enjoyment, try harder, and are willing topractice for longer periods of time (Schmidt & Wrisberg 2008). Interestingly, theresults regarding enjoyment and satisfaction were similar. It seems that studentsexpress more positive affective responses when process goals are introduced to guidetheir emulative practice. These responses are favorable for students’ long-term en-gagement in learning process (Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997). However, future re-search should further explore this issue. It should also be noted that satisfaction andenjoyment were measured using single-item questions. Although, these scales havebeen found to be predictive of other forms of self-regulation in previous research(Kitsantas & Zimmerman 1998; Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1996, 1997), results regard-ing enjoyment and satisfaction should be interpreted with caution.

A noteworthy feature of this study was the examination of students’ performancecalibration. Two calibration indices, the bias and the accuracy scores, were calculatedto examine the effects of different experimental treatment in students’ performancecalibration (Hacker et al. 2008). Regarding bias scores, students who set process goalfor their emulative practice and continued pursuing this goal with the assistance ofself-recording at the self-control level underestimated their performance, whereas thestudents of the other groups overestimated their performance. That is, consistent withprevious findings (Boekaerts & Rozendaal 2010; Fogarty & Ross 2007; Fogarty &Else 2005; Keren 1991) students overestimated their performance with the exceptionof students in the process goal condition who underestimated their performance. It hasbeen supported that students who are aware of knowledge constraints and the com-plexity of a task may underestimate their skills (Efklides & Misailidi 2010). Theprocess goal of improving two basic dribbling elements and the social feedbackregarding their performance that they received during emulative practice might have


increased group 3 students’ awareness regarding the status of their performance andthe difficulty of the task. Furthermore, group 3 students acquiring performance stand-ards and using them in the subsequent self-directed practice became more conservativeregarding the evaluations of their performance and thus underestimated their post-testperformance compared to the other students.

On the other hand, no difference among groups was found in calibration accuracy.That is, the experience of emulative and self-control practice did not affect students’calibration accuracy. It has been supported that calibration accuracy is hard to learn orresistant to change (Bol et al. 2005). Previous efforts to improve calibration accuracyhave shown mixed results (Hacker et al. 2008). On the other hand, Stone (2000)hypothesized that self-regulated learners are well calibrated. Zimmerman et al. (2008)provided evidence suggesting that a self-regulated learning intervention designed toimprove students’ self-reflection did improve the accuracy of students’ self-monitoring.In the present study, although experimental treatment focused on developing students’self-regulated learning, no specific technique was adopted for improving calibration. Itappears that feedback and practice alone are insufficient for improving calibrationaccuracy (Hacker et al. 2008). Thus, self-regulatory practice does not automaticallyincreases calibration accuracy, unless this is explicitly pursued through a well-designed and specific intervention that includes systematic monitoring of learning.Furthermore, the dribble test may be considered as novel for the students and thus itwas more difficult for them to be accurate in the estimations regarding their forth-coming performance, as difficulty of the task is associated with lower accuracy(i.e., overconfidence, Fogarty & Else 2005).

From an applied perspective, the present and the previous findings (Kitsantas et al.2000; Kolovelonis et al. 2010, 2011, 2012b; Zimmerman & Kitsantas 1997) supportedthe effectiveness of the social cognitive model of self-regulated learning development.This model can be used as an instructional approach for teaching sport skills inphysical education. Physical educators can use this teaching approach to facilitatethe transition from the practice with social feedback which is common in sportssettings (Williams & Hodges 2005) to the self-directed practice and the developmentof self-regulated learning. Furthermore, this model could be used for individualizinglearning and performance in physical education. In particular, depending on theirimprovement, students in a physical education class can practice a skill at differentlevels of self-regulated learning. For example, students who have acquired perfor-mance standards can self-direct their practice at the self-control level self-monitoringtheir performance, whereas students who strive to acquire the performance standardsmay continue the practice receiving social feedback or even observing furtherdemonstrations.

A possible limitation of this study concerns the short-term intervention and theabsence of retention measures. Future research should involve more than one singlepractice session and retention measures to examine the long-term effects of using thesocial cognitive model of self-regulated learning development. Moreover, future inter-ventions should be implemented at class level, using a variety of skills to simulatereal-life teaching conditions. In these studies, the effectiveness of the sequentialpractice through the four levels of the social cognitive model of self-regulatedlearning development should also be examined. Regarding performance calibration,future research should examine grade and gender differences in students’ performancecalibration using different motor and sport tasks. Furthermore, the factors associatedwith students’ performance miscalibration should be examined. Finally, the


development and evaluation of interventions designed to improve students’ perfor-mance calibration in physical education could be a fruitful area for future research.

References

Bar-Eli, M. G., Tenenbaum, G., Pie, J. S., Btesh, Y., & Almog, A. (1997). Effect of goal difficulty, goalspecificity and duration of practice time intervals on muscular endurance performance. Journal of SportsSciences, 15, 125–135.

Barrow, H. M., & McGee, R. (1979). A practical approach to measurement in physical education. Phila-delphia: Lea & Febiger.

Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychol-ogist, 1, 100–112.

Boekaerts, M., & Rozendaal, J. (2010). Using multiple calibration indices in order to capture thecomplex picture of what affects students’ accuracy of feeling of confidence. Learning andInstruction, 20, 372–382.

Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review onperformance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133–151.

Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievementlevel, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 73, 269–290.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Efklides, Α. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the

MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25.Efklides, A., & Misailidi, P. (2010). Introduction: the present and the future in metacognition. In A. Efklides &

P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 1–18). New York: Springer.Efklides, A., Niemivirta, M., & Yamauchi, H. (2002). Introduction: some issues on self-regulation to consider.

Psychologia, 45, 207–210.Escarti, A., & Guzman, J. F. (1999). Effects of feedback on self-efficacy, performance, and choice in an

athletic task. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 83–96.Filby, W., Maynard, I., & Graydon, J. (1999). The effect of multiple-goal strategies on performance outcomes

in training and competition. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 230–246.Fogarty, G., & Else, D. (2005). Performance calibration in sport: implications for self-confidence and

metacognitive biases. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 41–57.Fogarty, G., & Ross, A. (2007). Calibration in tennis: the role of feedback and expertise. In K. Moore

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 Conference of the Australian Psychological Society (pp. 148–152).Australia: Brisbane.

Gallahue, D. L., & Donnelly, F. C. (2003). Developmental physical education for all children (4th ed.).Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Goudas, M., Dermitzaki, I., & Bagiatis, K. (2000). Predictor of student’s intrinsic motivation in schoolphysical education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 271–280.

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2008). Metacognition in education: a focus on calibration. In J.Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 429–455). New York:Psychology Press.

Horgan, D. D. (1992). Children and chess expertise: the role of calibration. Psychological Research, 54, 44–50.Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgements: conceptual and methodological issues. Acta

Psychologia, 77, 217–273.Kingston, K. M., & Wilson, K. M. (2009). The application of goal setting in sport. In S. Mellalieu &

S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology. A review (pp. 75–123). New York:Routledge.

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulation of motor learning: a strategic cycle view. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 10, 220–239.

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: a microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,13, 365–379.


Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in thedevelopment of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 811–817.

Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2010). Self-regulated learning of a motor skill throughemulation and self-control levels in a physical education setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,22, 198–212.

Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effect of different goals and self-recording on self-regulation of learning a motor skill in a physical education setting. Learning and Instruction, 21, 355–364.

Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012a). The effects of self-talk and goal setting on self-regulation of learning a new motor skill in physical education. International Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2012.671592.

Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., Hassandra, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012b). Self-regulated learning in physicaleducation: examining the effects of emulative and self-control practice. Psychology of sport and Exercise,13, 383–389.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33, 159–174.

Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy.The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131–142.

Paye, B. (2000). Youth basketball drills. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited. Empirical and applied

evidence. In D. M. McInerney & S. V. Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 115–138).Greenwich: Information Age.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. EducationalPsychologist, 32, 195–208.

Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Motor learning and performance. A situation-based learningapproach (4th ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Smith, R. E. (2006). Positive reinforcement, performance feedback, and performance enhancement. In J. M.Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: personal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 40–56).New York: McGraw Hill.

Stone, N. J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. EducationalPsychology Review, 12, 437–475.

Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learningof texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.

Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.). Champaign: HumanKinetics.

Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: challengingtradition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 637–650.

Wissel, H. (2004). Basketball: steps to success. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts,

P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: AcademicPress.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: a key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D. H. Schunk &B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications (pp.267–295). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: the role of goal settingand self-recording. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 60–75.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: shifting from processgoals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of the personal competence. Self-regulatedlearning and practice. In A. J. Ellio & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.509–526). New York: The Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., Moylan, A., Hudesman, J., White, N., & Flugman, B. (2008). Enhancing self-reflectionand mathematics achievement of at-risk students at an urban technical college: A self-regulated learningintervention. U.S. Department of Education.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual process and outcomes: asocial cognitive perspective. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, andcognition (pp. 323–349). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.671592

Athanasios Kolovelonis. Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Thessaly, 421 00Karies, Trikala, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]

Current themes of research:

Self-regulated learning. Life skills. Motivation.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:


Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effect of different goals and self-recordingon self-regulation of learning a motor skill in a physical education setting. Learning andInstruction, 21, 355–364.

Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effects of instructional and motivationalself-talk on students’ motor task performance in physical education. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 12, 153–158.

Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Gerodimos, V. (2011). The effects of the reciprocal and the self-check styleson pupils’ performance in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 17, 35–50.

Marios Goudas. Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Thessaly, 421 00 Karies,Trikala, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]


Self-regulated learning. Life skills. Motivation.


Goudas, M., Dermitzaki, I., Leondari, A., & Danish, S. (2006). The effectiveness of teaching a life skillsprogram in a physical education context. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXI, 429–438.

Goudas, M., & Giannoudis, G. (2008). A team-sports-based life-skills program in a physical educationcontext. Learning and Instruction, 18, 528–536.

Goudas, M., & Magotsiou, E.(2009). The effects of a cooperative physical education program on students’social skills. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 356–364.



Irini Dermitzaki. Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton & Fillelinon, 382 21Volos, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]


Motivation. Metacognition. Self-regulated learning.


Dermitzaki, I., Leondari, A., & Goudas, M. (2009). Relations between young students’ strategic behaviours,domain-specific self-concept, and performance in a Problem-solving situation. Learning and Instruction,19, 144–157.


Dermitzaki, I. (2005). Preliminary investigation of relations between young students’ self-regulatory strategiesand their metacognitive experiences. Psychological Reports, 97, 759–768.

Goudas, M., Dermitzaki, I., Leondari, A., & Danish, S. (2006). The effectiveness of teaching a life skillsprogram in a physical education context. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXI, 429–438.



Anastasia Kitsantas. College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, 4400University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA. E-mail: [email protected]


Social cognitive processes. Self-regulated learning in academic. Sports. Health related settings.


Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., Ware, H. (2011). The role of homework support resources, time spent onhomework, and self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics 22(2), 312–341.

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulation of motor learning: A strategic cycle view. Journalof Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 220–239.

Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in thedevelopment of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 811–817.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of goal settingand self-recording. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 60–75.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from processgoals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.


Documents

Self-regulated learning and performance calibration among elementary physical education students