1 / 20

Metacognitive strategies as predictor for better test results

Metacognitive strategies as predictor for better test results. Part of Present & Discuss Session ‘ Stimulating metacognitive skills among students ’ Wilbert van der Heul. Practical foundation: reason for this study.

louiso
Télécharger la présentation

Metacognitive strategies as predictor for better test results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metacognitive strategies as predictor for better test results Part of Present & Discuss Session ‘Stimulating metacognitive skills among students’ Wilbert van der Heul

  2. Practical foundation: reason for this study • At the Albeda College, a Regional Community College, students of personal healthcare assistant (level 3) and (medical) nurse (level 4)score low at their knowledge-tests for anatomy; • Assumption: students do not know how to learn anatomy (declarative knowledge) and teachers use limited didactics;

  3. Theoretical foundation: metacognition

  4. Self-regulation and self-efficacy

  5. ‘When students use more metacognitive skills, they may score better on their anatomy-tests’

  6. Two design requirements • Focusing on the acquisition and application of metacognitive strategies, particularly self-regulation; • Focusing on the enhancement of self-efficacy. • Explicit attention for self-regulation; • Selecting-Organising-Integrating-model (Mayer, 1999) – active learning: multiple didactics, pictures, colours / italics; • Constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003); • Trial-exams (Marzano, 1999)

  7. Design wishes In consultation with fellow teachers and management: • Structure • Straightforward • Compatible with existing classes • achievable • (if possible: not to complicated)

  8. Instructional design (learning arrangement / intervention)

  9. Research goals and questions Goals: to positively influence the metacognitive strategies of the studentand better test results. 1: What is the influence of the learning-arrangement on the learning behaviour of the student concerning the anatomy-class in terms of metacognitive strategies, self-regulation and self-efficacy? 2: What influence does the learning-arrangement have on the test-results?

  10. Research design

  11. Participants and Measurement Personal healthcare assistant: N = 56; experiment: 33 (2 groups); reference 23: (I group); Medical nurse: N = 85; experiment: 47 (2 groups), reference: 38 (2 groups) Total N = 141 Measuring learning behaviour of the students: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, (Pintrich et al., 1991) learning strategies and motivation: • 81 items divided in 15 scales, 9 for learning strategies (including self-regulation) and 6 for motivation (including self-efficacy); • 7-point-likert scale from 1 (not for me) to 7 (totally me); • Alpha: between 0.61 and 0.94

  12. Data-analysis Two-way repeated measures between groups ANOVA with co-variances • Total scale learning strategies • Self-regulation • Self-efficacy • Total scale motivation Dependent variables: total scores of the scales Independent variables: experiment- and reference groups of both programs Co-variances: total hours lessons anatomy, total hours homework, total hours studying for test

  13. Results Personal Healthcare Assistant (level 3) Metacognitive strategies: F(2) = 3.906, p = 0.026; average effect (p.e.s.= 0.122); Between groups: F(2) = 3.614, p = 0.035; average effect (p.e.s.= 0.114)

  14. Results personal healthcare assistant (level 3) Self-regulation: F(2) = 3.794, p = 0.028; average effect (p.e.s. = 0.119) Between groups: F(2) = 3.280, p = 0.045; average effect (p.e.s. = 0.105).

  15. Results (medical) Nurse (level 4) Metacognitive strategies: F(2) = 0.210, p = 0.811 Between groups: F(2) = 0.540, p = 0.584 Self-regulation: F(2) = 0.309, p = 0.735 Between groups: F(2) = 0.676, p = 0.511

  16. Results (medical) Nurse (level 4) Motivation experiment after 20 weeks: F(2) = 3.999, p = 0.021; small effect (p.e.s. = 0.067) When learning-arrangement will be continued a significant difference between groups is possible: F(1) = 5.949, p = 0.018, average effect (p.e.s. = 0.096)

  17. Conclusion • There is an influence of the learning-arrangement on the learning behaviour of student: • Level 3: metacognitive strategies, self-regulation, long-term  motivation • Level 4: motivation, long-term even significant effect between groups

  18. Recommendations

  19. Nevertheless Why has the learning-arrangement no influence on the test-results (yet)?

More Related