Use of the Three-Stage Model of Self-regulatory Prompts in Language teaching to enhance Metacognition

A paper presented to:Ms. Anne Marie Ramos

Educational Leadership Management DepartmentDe La Salle University- Manila

In Partial Fulfillmentof the requirements for

SPTOPC L931st Trimester, SY 2009-2010

ByKanlapan, Ma. Theresa Carmela E.

&Velasco, Joseph C.

September 01, 2009

Chapter 1

Introduction

I. Background of the Study

It has been known that students are perceived to be passive learners and

not responsible for their own learning. They are expected to plainly sit in the

classroom and struggle to commit to memory what their teachers or instructor

has discussed or taught. After the discussion, the main endeavor of the student

is to restate what the instructor has discussed prior to the assessment. There is a

lack for self-initiated strategies in which students will acquire knowledge for their

own benefit like setting goals for themselves and applying appropriate learning

strategies for learning a specific topic. This occurrence was highly discussed by

Zimmerman (2002) and Plata (2008). Due to the aforementioned phenomenon,

there is a great need to make students more conscientious towards their own

learning. Thus, there is a dire need to enhance the metacognitive awareness of

students that they may feel more responsible for their own learning and as a

result would render them autonomous or independent learners.

According to Plata (2008), metacognition is delineated as managing one’s

own thinking. It is the awareness one’s strengths and limitations as a learner,

having wide-ranging approaches for learning and thinking as well as having a

variety of metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring and regulating

learning. An approach or method of developing metacogitive strategies is through

self-regulation. Pintrich (1995) defines self-regulation as the “active, goal-directed

self-control of behavior, motivation, and cognition for academic tasks by an

2

individual student.”(p. 5) Thus, it can be deduced that self-regulated learners are

also learners who can monitor their metacognitive knowledge.

With that in mind, the researchers believe that if one’s metacognitive

awareness can be developed through self-reflective and self-evaluative activities,

self-regulation made a strategy to learning may lead to academic success.

According to Zimmerman (2002), self-regulation is a self-directive process by

which the learners convert their psychological faculties into academic ability. The

goal of self-regulation in developing metacognitive awareness is to have effective

learners. As an effective learner, students must adjust their efforts based on their

awareness of their own understanding and the level of difficulty of the upcoming

task (Isaacson & Fujita, 2006). Furthermore, they said that one of the critical

barriers to success for many students may be their inability to objectively assess

their mastery of the academic tasks they are facing.

This present study aims to make use of the three-stage model of self-

regulation by giving students prompts that will help increase students’ awareness

of themselves as learners. We would want to see how students respond to this

model in order to find out if it meets its objectives of helping students set goals,

monitor their progress, and evaluate their growth (Plata, 2008). We would also

like to identify the factors that affect their progress in learning through such

prompts to be given to them. This study will be conducted at the prescribed high

school by the Department of English and Applied Linguistics (DEAL) during the

researchers’ practicum. The intervention will be administered in three separate

occasions: the start of the course, the middle of the course and at the end.

3

II. Statement of the Problem

This study intends to describe how self-regulation will affect the student’s

awareness of their abilities in written communication skills. In this study, the

dependent variable is the metacognitive knowledge of the students using the

parameters from Pintrich (2002) and Wenden (1998). The independent

variable(s) are the self-regulatory prompts that were devised the study of Plata

(2008). The researchers would attempt to answer the following questions:

1. How did the students respond to the model of self-regulation in terms of the

metacognitive knowledge evident in their answers?

2. What were the internal and external factors that lead to the students’ failure or

success in class?

3. How can the self-regulation model help address the factors that affect the

learning progress of the students?

III. Rationale

According to Wenden (1998), language teachers should develop a more

reflective approach as learners need guidance in improving and expanding their

knowledge about learning. Through self-regulatory prompts, students will be

aware of what they know and what they still need to know. Additionally, teachers

will be able to guide students as they try to reach their goals and appropriately

create instructional tasks that will assist the students in their learning.

By means of self-regulation, the students will have the initiative to learn by

their own and to engage themselves in specific tasks using appropriate learning

strategies. Zimmerman (2002) claimed that very few teachers give student

4

opportunity to develop the student’s ability to acquire knowledge independently.

There is a need to incorporate opportunities for student reflection which in turn

will cultivate routines for self-reflection.

Providing learners with prospects to formulate judgment which will

influence their learning will develop self-determination and autonomy in acquiring

knowledge, above all, it will help them use appropriate strategies to learn

something. If a culture of self-reflection is expanded there will be a high

probability that the students will avoid being highly structured as to sit and

regurgitate what the instructor has immediately discussed.

5

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

Zimmerman & Pons (1986) conducted a study towards developing an interview

structure for assessing self-regulation learning strategies of students on a naturalistic

setting and describing the relationship between students’ reported use of self-regulating

strategies and measures of accomplishment or achievement track in high school. In

their study, self-regulated strategies mean actions directed at acquiring information or

skill that involve agency, purpose or goals and instrumentality self-perceptions by the

learners. Also, a lot of extensive research has been done concerning the self regulated

learning processes but predominantly in laboratory situations and not in naturalistic

particularly non-classroom contexts. The participants of study were 25 male and 15

female sophomore students from a high achievement track on a large metropolitan area

and another 19 male and 15 female students from a lower achievement track of a

suburban high school. The study made use of the 14 self-regulation strategies and 1

non-self-regulated strategy in non-classroom and classroom context based on their prior

research. The results showed that the students on the high achievement group reported

less significant use non-self-regulated response as compared to the low achievement

group. Moreover, the category of self-evaluation failed to relate to student achievement

but the researchers believe that it is an important self-regulating strategy.

Another study related to self regulation was done by Zimmerman & Bandura

(1994). It discussed the outcomes of self-regulatory influence on the success in a

writing course. According to the researchers, self-regulation functions through an array

of psychological sub functions for instance self-monitoring of one’s activity, applying

6

personal standards for judging and directing one’s performances, enlisting self-reactive

influences to guide and motivate one’s effort, and employing appropriate strategies to

achieve success. Also, it is not automatic that when one has self-regulatory skills the

person applies it in the midst of difficulties, stressors or competing attraction. With that

upheld, students register the highest sense of efficacy to manage the content aspects of

instruction, but a low sense of efficacy to manage themselves to get their activities

done. In their study, the participants were 95 freshmen students from a highly selective

university and had an age range of 17 to 20 years old; 47 were enrolled in a regular

class and 48 attended the advance classes. The researchers administered the

measures of different self-regulatory factors to the students at the beginning of the

academic quarter and the instructor provided the final grades at the end of the

academic quarter as a measure of the student’s writing attainment. The outcome of the

study signified that the different facets of self-efficacy played a big role in the attainment

in the writing course which in turn augment the goals that the students have placed for

themselves and the quality of writing with which they would be pleased. Lastly, it was

suggested that self-regulative strategies that maintain intention by means of self-

enhanced concentration, task management, and completion are crucial for success

academically.

Singer and Bashir (1999) conducted a research which also made use of the self-

regulated approach in dealing with oral and written communication skills. This

intervention was implemented on one sixteen year old student with some speech-

language evaluation. Singer and Bashir believe that strategies for speaking and writing

are correlated with the three sub-processes of self-regulation. The student, George,

7

learned to recognize the feeling that he experienced when dealing with ineffective

verbal expression such as anxiety, louder volume, and pitch through self-reflection and

self-evaluation strategies which the researchers taught him. George’s ability to become

more self-regulated progressed rapidly. By the end of that school year, George’s

communication skills improved.

Plata (2008) did a similar study regarding the use of self-regulation as a strategy

in language learning. She explored Freshman Composition students’ reflection in their

journals to find out the role of the three-stage model of self-regulatory prompts in

student’s learning and metacognition. She collected 47 journals from two classes

comprising of 22 Liberal Arts students and 25 from Engineering. Her study revealed that

giving students prompts that manifest the cycle of self-regulation can increase student’s

awareness of their learning. Results of the study also indicate that the prompts not only

give students the experience of minding their own thinking but also making them aware

of the depth and breadth of their learning experience.

Zimmerman (2002) created an overview about what a self regulated learner is

and clarified the concept of self-regulation. The researcher also indicated how to teach

students to become self-regulated learners. Self-regulation is not a mental ability or an

academic performance skill but it is a self-directive process by which the learners

transform their mental abilities into academic skill. In a more specific standpoint, it refers

to the self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are oriented to attaining

goals. Zimmerman provided a framework for describing the structure and function of

self-regulatory processes. According to the researcher, there are three major phases in

self-regulation namely: the forethought phase, the performance phase and the self-

8

reflection phase. In the forethought phase there are two important concepts to take not

of which is task analysis and goal setting. Considering the performance phase, there

are two concepts to take not of which is self-control and self observation. The last phase

which is self-reflection includes self-judgment and self-reflection. The researcher

highlighted the fact that the extent and quality of student’s utilization of self-regulatory

processes has exposed high correspondence with scholastic achievement track and

situation as well with performance on standardized test scores. Even though research

shows that there necessity to advocate self-regulation to student, very few teachers

efficiently prepare students to obtain knowledge on their own because they are seldom

given options regarding academic tasks to engage in, and methods on carrying out

complex assignment. Moreover, students are rarely given the opportunity to self-

evaluate their work or approximate their capability or aptitude on new tasks.

Although there are studies that provide information on the theoretical aspects of

self-regulation and its relationship with metacognition, the practical facet of such

concepts needs to be further explored. This is why the present research intends to

delve into the use of self-regulation, particularly using prompts reflecting the three-stage

model of the self-regulation cycle, in the classroom. Additionally, the researchers would

like to further investigate on how this model can improve metacognitive awareness

amongst students so that they may become more responsible of their own learning.

Conceptual Framework

In the research of Zimmerman (2002) there are three stages involved in self-

regulation. The phases of self-regulation initially start with the forethought phase which

consists of goal setting and planning. It is followed by the performance phase which

9

includes self-instruction, imagery, attention and focus, and self-observation. The last

segment of the self-regulation process is the self-reflection phase which consists of

making judgments of one’s learning and self-evaluation. Plata (2008) indicated that this

three stage model by Zimmerman (2002) will cultivate metacognition in learners. In line

with the relationships made by Plata (2008) and Zimmerman (2002) on self-regulation

and metacognition; the present study made use of the three-staged model of self-

regulatory prompts to describe how they will affect the students’ metacognitive

knowledge in written communication skills.

The concepts presented in the conceptual framework are showed graphically in

figure1.

Figure 1. Self-regulation cycle and Metacognition

10

Chapter 3

Methodology

I. Research design

This research intends to present and describe the evidence of metacognitive

knowledge amongst the participants as they respond to the self-regulatory

prompts through the written journals. The present study will make use of the

qualitative analysis to examine and classify the participants’ reflections. It will

also be predominantly descriptive in nature since the researchers principally plan

to systematically and accurately delineate how the self-regulation process can be

utilized to develop amongst the students’ awareness of their own knowledge and

learning.

II. Participants

The participants of this research will be senior students from Saint Anthony

School located in Singalong, Manila. This is the assigned practicum site to the

researchers, thus, implementation of the intervention will take place in the same

school. It is a private parochial institution managed by the Bishop of Manila.

There will be around 55 students participating in the study. For each class, there

is an estimated 45 to 55 students and the researchers are assuming that all the

participants will be coming from one class.

III. Instruments

The researcher will make use of journals where the students will be

responding to the self-regulatory prompts which will be given to them. These self-

11

regulatory prompts were made by Plata (2008) and were utilized as well for her

research on self-regulation in the writing context. There will be three stages of

the prompt which starts with goal setting, followed by self-monitoring and finally,

self-evaluation. The journals will contain the responses of the students regarding

the prompt. These will be answered by the students three times: (1) start of the

grading period, (2) middle of the grading period and, (3) at the end of the grading

period. After each task, the researchers will collect the journal from the English

class. The journals will serve as the focus of the research by analyzing the

responses of the students. The list of these prompts can be found in Appendix B

of this paper.

IV. Data Gathering Procedures

1. The researchers will administer the first segment of self-regulatory prompts

through writing journals. The foremost fraction of the three-stage model of

self-regulatory prompts entails goal setting. The goal setting prompts will

include establishing specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound

(SMART) objectives and how the participants will attempt to achieve the

objectives that were set. The principles of the SMART objectives will be

taught to the students prior to the giving of prompts.

2. The researchers will collect the journal and analyze the contents in the

forethought phase by categorizing the statements in the prompt.

3. The researcher will administer the second cycle of the self-regulatory prompts

which involves self-monitoring. The self-monitoring prompts will inquire about

12

the participant’s relationship with the goals they have set; problems achieving

goals and how they attempt to solve the problems.

4. The researchers will collect the journal and analyze the contents in the

performance phase by categorizing the statements in the prompt.

5. The research will administer the final cycle of the self-regulatory prompts

which involves self-reflection and evaluation. The prompt will make inquiries

about the participant’s judgments of his own learning.

6. The researchers will collect the journal and analyze the contents in the self-

reflection phase by categorizing the statements in the prompt.

7. The researchers will analyze the data gathered.

Proposed Time Frame

Occassion Task

Week 1 Initial observation of students

Week 2 Administer the goal setting prompt

Week 4 Administer the self-monitoring prompt

Week 8 Administer the self-reflection prompt

Week 9-10 Categorization of Data

Week 11 Analysis of Data

V. Data Analysis

The researchers will follow the two phases of data analysis indicated by Best

(1981). In the first phase which is called the deductive phase, we would be

13

classifying and tabulating the responses of the students in their journals with

reference to the parameters set by Pintrich (2002) and Wenden (1998). Refer to

Appendix A for the types of metacognitive knowledge. The classification of

responses will depend primarily on the type of metacognitive knowledge the

students possesses.

In the inductive phase, the researchers will synthesize that data gathered from

the responses of the students and formulate generalizations about how self-

regulated the students are. This will help the researchers determine what strategies

the students employ when given a writing task and what problems the students

encounter when writing.

14

References

Best, John W. (1981). Research in Education. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Isaacson, R. M. & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and Self-

regulated learning: Academic Success and reflections on learning. Journal of the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6 (1), 39-55.

Pintrich, P., R. (1995). “Understanding self-regulated learning”. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.),

Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and

assessing. Theory into Practice, 41, 4, 219-225.

Plata, S. M. (2008). Exploring students’ self-assessment following the Three-Stage

Model of Self-refgulatory prompts in Freshman Composition. Learning Edge. Vol.

4, 3- 52.

Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A.S. (1999). What are executive functions and self-regulation and what

do they have to do with language-learning disorders? Language, Speech, and having

services in schools, 30, 265-273.

Use of Self-Regulated Learning. American Educational Research Journal , 23 (4), 614- 628.

Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 19/4, 515-537.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory

into Practice , 41 (2), 64-70.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of Self-Regulatory Influences on

Writing Course Attainment. Educational Research Journal , 31 (4), 845-862.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing

Student use of learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-

628.

15

Appendix A

Types of Metacognitive Knowledge

Types/ Parameters

1. Self-k/nowledge

Self-awareness of their strengths and weakness

Belief about their motivation

Judgments of their capability to perform a task

Awareness of their goals for completing a task (grade or learning)

Perceived proficiency

Belief about their ability to achieve a particular objective.

2. Strategic Knowledge

Knowledge of general strategies for learning such as rehearsal (repeating

vocabulary to learn it), elaboration (summarizing and paraphrasing), and

organization (making connections such as outlining, note taking, and

summarizing)

Knowledge of strategies for planning, monitoring, and evaluating

3. Knowledge about cognitive tasks

Knowledge of the demands of a learning task

Knowledge of when to use a particular strategy

- Pintrich (2002) and Wenden (1998)

16

Appendix B

Self-Regulation Cycle and Prompts

Self-regulation Cycle Schedule Self-Regulatory PromptsGoal Setting First day of Class How do you see yourself

as a reader/writer? What are your strengths and weaknesses?

What are your specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bounded (SMART) goals in this class?

Self-Monitoring After the Midterm Exam Are you moving closer to your goals? Why?

What problems hindered you from achieving your goals?

How did you solve these problems>

Self-Evaluation Last Day of Class Did you meet all the goals that you had set at the beginning of the term? Why? Or Why not?

Have you progresses in the following areas?

Reading Paragraph writing Essay writing Planning,

monitoring, and evaluation

What did you learn from journal writing?

- Plata (2008)

17