Deep learning self-regulation strategiesValidation of a situational model and its questionnaire

  1. Ernesto Panadero
  2. Jesús Alonso-Tapia
  3. Daniel García-Pérez
  4. Juan Fraile
  5. José Manuel Sánchez Galán
  6. Rodrigo Pardo
Revista:
Revista de psicodidáctica

ISSN: 1136-1034

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 26

Número: 1

Páginas: 10-19

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/J.PSICOE.2020.11.003 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de psicodidáctica

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Medir el aprendizaje autorregulado es fundamental para mejorar nuestras intervenciones educativas. Los cuestionarios de autoinforme han sido el principal método para su evaluación, con la mayoría de instrumentos construidos a partir de “modelos teóricos” generales. Frente a estos, este estudio valida un modelo basado en situaciones realistas de aprendizaje observadas en los alumnos. El Cuestionario de estrategias profundas de aprendizaje, tiene cuatro escalas: (1) Estrategias básicas de autorregulación del aprendizaje; (2) Estrategias de elaboración visual y de resumen; (3) Estrategias de procesamiento profundo de información; y (4) Estrategias sociales de autorregulación del aprendizaje. Participan 601 estudiantes universitarios. Primero, se ha analizado la validez interna del cuestionario, contrastando tres modelos: (M1) monofactorial; (M2) cuatro grupos de estrategias correlacionando libremente entre ellas; (M3) el factor de cada grupo de estrategias es indicador de un constructo latente general, modelo que resulta ligeramente mejor ajustado. Segundo, se ha realizado un análisis de rutas para estudiar si el uso de las estrategias de aprendizaje profundo depende de factores personales y predice el rendimiento. Se ha encontrado que depende directa y positivamente de la orientación hacia el aprendizaje, de los automensajes que definen el estilo de autorregulación de la emoción y la motivación centrado en el aprendizaje, y del esfuerzo. Además, estas dos últimas variables dependen de la autoeficacia que, a su vez, incide en el esfuerzo. El rendimiento ha dependido positivamente del esfuerzo y, negativamente, del uso de las estrategias de aprendizaje profundo. Esta relación negativa puede deberse a cómo se evalúa el rendimiento académico.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

  • Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) National I+D Call
    • EDU2016-79714-P

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aizpurua, A., Lizaso, I., & Iturbe, I. (2018). Learning strategies and reasoning skills of university students. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23(2), 110–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2018.01.001
  • Allal, L. (2020). Assessment and the co-regulation of learning in the classroom. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 332–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1609411
  • Alonso-Tapia, J., Nieto, C., Merino-Tejedor, E., Huertas, J. A., & Ruiz, M. (2018). Assessment of learning goals in university students from the perspective of ‘person-situation interaction’: the Situated Goals Questionnaire (SGQ-U). Studies in Psychology, 39(1), 20–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2017.1412707
  • Alonso-Tapia, J., Panadero, E., & Ruiz, M. A. (2014). Development and validity of the Emotion and Motivation Self-regulation Questionnaire (EMSR-Q). Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17(e55), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.41
  • Baird, J., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337
  • Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
  • Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
  • Cerezo, R., Fernández, E., Amieiro, N., Valle, A., Rosario, P., & Núñez, J. C. (2019). Mediating role of self-efficacy and usefulness between self-regulated learning strategy knowledge and its use. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 24(1), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2018.08.001
  • Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., van Daal, T., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). The growth trend in learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. Higher Education, 73(3), 499–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0093-x
  • Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003
  • Fryer, L. K., & Dinsmore, D. L. (2020). The promise and pitfalls of self-report. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.623
  • García-Pérez, D., Fraile, J., & Panadero, E. (2020). Learning strategies and self-regulation in context: How higher education students approach different courses, assessments, and challenges. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00488-z
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson-Prentice Hall.
  • Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning strategies. Academic Press. Hofverberg, A., & Winberg, M. (2020). Challenging the universality of achievement goal models: A comparison of two culturally distinct countries. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(3), 333–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1544170
  • Jiménez, L., García, A. J., López-Cepero, J., & Saavedra, F. J. (2018). The brief-ACRA scale on learning strategies for university students. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23(1), 63–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2017.03.001
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102 1
  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). MPLUS: Statistical analysis with latent variables: user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén
  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413
  • Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422) http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
  • Panadero, E., Fraile, J., Fernández Ruiz, J., Castilla-Estévez, D., & Ruiz, M. A. (2019). Spanish university assessment practices: Examination tradition with diversity by faculty. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 379–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1512553
  • Panadero, E., Klug, J., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: when measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(6), 723–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436
  • Pekrun, R. (2020). Self-report is indispensable to assess students’ learning. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 185–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.637
  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). Academic Press. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan.
  • Pozo, J. I. (1989). Teorías cognitivas del aprendizaje. Morata.
  • Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
  • Roth, A., Ogrin, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic literature review of self-report instruments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 225–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2
  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9
  • Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students’ strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 351–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709906x106147
  • Schellings, G. (2011). Applying learning strategy questionnaires: problems and possibilities. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 91–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9069-
  • Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  • Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000
  • Veenman, M. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x
  • Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. H & H Publishing Company.
  • Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). LASSI: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. H & H Publishing Company.
  • Winne, P. (2020). A proposed remedy for grievances about self-report methodologies. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 164–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.625
  • Zhou, Y., & Wang, J. (2019). Goal orientation, learning strategies, and academic performance in adult distance learning. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(7) http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8195
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.13–40). Academic Press.
  • Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Goal 3: Developing text comprehension and summarization skills. In B. J. Zimmerman, S. Bonner, & R. Kovach (Eds.), Psychology in the classroom: A series on applied educational psychology. Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy (pp. 47–67). American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10213-003
  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The educational psychology series. Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). Routledge
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet