Chapter 7, page 128
Ɣ adjusting the strategies they use based on their self-evaluations of how well they are progressing toward
their goals (Butler & Winne, 1995; Paris & Paris, 2001; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006;
Zimmerman, 1998).
Researchers who study self-regulated learning investigate the use of a broad range of strategies, focusing
especially on learners’ self-control over all the strategies that are used (e.g., Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami,
2006). They also emphasize the importance of learners setting their own goals, monitoring their own
performance, and evaluating how well they are doing at achieving their goals (e.g., Butler & Winne, 1995).
They have also focused on how effective learners regulate their emotions, their interest, and their
motivation (Wolters, 2003).
RESEARCH ON COGNITIVE STRATEGIESAs educational psychologists have studied cognitive strategies, they have become persuaded that
strategy instruction should become an important part of the curriculum (De La Paz, 2005; Graham,
Harris, & Mason, 2005; Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). Strategy instruction refers to instruction that teaches
students to use effective cognitive strategies. Four types of empirical studies have contributed to the
enthusiasm among educators for helping students learn effective cognitive strategies:
- Comparisons of experts with novices, and of proficient students with less proficient students
- Strategy training studies
- Large-scale instructional experiments
- Comparisons of effective and ineffective schools or classes
We will discuss examples of each of these four types of studies below. Studies such as these present a
powerful case for making strategy instruction a central goal of education.
Comparisons of Experts with Novices, and of Proficient Students with Less Proficient Students
In Chapter 6 (Prior Conceptions), you learned about expert-novice studies that highlighted
differences in how experts and novices organize knowledge. Many studies comparing experts and novices
have examined the strategies that experts and novices use when trying to solve problems or reason about
data (e.g., Barnett & Koslowski, 2002; Clement, 1994; Noice & Noice, 2002; Schunn & Anderson, 1999;
Voss et al., 1983). Other studies have compared high-performing students with low-performing students
(such as good vs. poor readers) to see how their strategy use differs (e.g., Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Chan et
al., 1992; Chi et al., 1989; Lundeberg, 1987). The results of these studies have yielded a powerful
understanding of differences in strategy use between proficient learners and thinkers and less proficient
learners and thinkers.
One well-known example of this type of study was an investigation of university students who were
studying chapters from a physics textbook on the laws of motion (Chi et al., 1989). The students read
earlier chapters for background information, and they took a pretest on the quality of their conceptual
understanding of the key theoretical ideas from these earlier chapters. Then they read a target chapter that
addressed particle dynamics (such as the motion of objects on an incline and the motion of objects hanging
from pulleys). The chapter included explanatory material as well as three worked-out example problems.
Then the students attempted to solve test problems, including problems from the end of the chapter. The
students were asked to think aloud as they studied the three worked-out examples and as they worked on
the test problems.
Chi et al. compared successful students, those who did well on these problems (82% success rate)
with unsuccessful students, those who did not do well on these problems (46% success rate). The
researchers found no differences on the test of conceptual understanding of the key theoretical ideas that
students took before they began studying the worked-out examples. Instead, they found that there were
major differences in study strategies between the two groups of students as they studied the worked
examples. The successful students generated many more comments as they studied the three worked-out
problems. The types of statements made between successful and unsuccessful students differed as well.