Effects of short- and long-term prompting in learning journals on strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Instructional Science Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1007/s11251-024-09671-x
Nadja M. Gentner, Lisa Respondek, Tina Seufert
{"title":"Effects of short- and long-term prompting in learning journals on strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes","authors":"Nadja M. Gentner, Lisa Respondek, Tina Seufert","doi":"10.1007/s11251-024-09671-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In learning journals, prompts were shown to increase self-regulated learning processes effectively. As studies on effects of long-term prompting are sparse, this study investigates the effects of prompting cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation strategies short-term and long-term in learning journals on learners’ strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcome. Therefore, 74 university students kept a weekly learning journal as follow-up course work over a period of eight weeks. All students’ learning journals included prompts for a short-term period, half of the students were prompted long-term. While self-efficacy was assessed via self-reports, strategy use was measured with self-reports and qualitative data from the learning journals. Learning outcomes were assessed via course exams. Short-term prompting increased self-reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, and the quantity of cognitive strategy use. Yet, it did not affect self-efficacy, which predicted the learning outcome. Irrespective whether prompting continued or not, self-reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, and self-efficacy decreased. Qualitative data indicate that the quantity of learners’ cognitive strategy use kept stable irrespective of the condition. The results indicate that short-term prompting activates cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. Long-term prompting in learning journals had no effect on strategy use, self-efficacy, and performance. Future research should investigate possible enhancers of long-term prompting like feedback, adaptive prompts or additional support.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09671-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In learning journals, prompts were shown to increase self-regulated learning processes effectively. As studies on effects of long-term prompting are sparse, this study investigates the effects of prompting cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation strategies short-term and long-term in learning journals on learners’ strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcome. Therefore, 74 university students kept a weekly learning journal as follow-up course work over a period of eight weeks. All students’ learning journals included prompts for a short-term period, half of the students were prompted long-term. While self-efficacy was assessed via self-reports, strategy use was measured with self-reports and qualitative data from the learning journals. Learning outcomes were assessed via course exams. Short-term prompting increased self-reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, and the quantity of cognitive strategy use. Yet, it did not affect self-efficacy, which predicted the learning outcome. Irrespective whether prompting continued or not, self-reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, and self-efficacy decreased. Qualitative data indicate that the quantity of learners’ cognitive strategy use kept stable irrespective of the condition. The results indicate that short-term prompting activates cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. Long-term prompting in learning journals had no effect on strategy use, self-efficacy, and performance. Future research should investigate possible enhancers of long-term prompting like feedback, adaptive prompts or additional support.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学习日记中的短期和长期提示对策略使用、自我效能感和学习成果的影响
研究表明,在学习日记中,提示能有效提高自我调节的学习过程。由于有关长期提示效果的研究较少,本研究探讨了在学习日记中长期和短期提示认知和元认知自我调节策略对学习者策略使用、自我效能感和学习效果的影响。因此,74 名大学生在八周内每周写一篇学习日记,作为后续课程作业。所有学生的学习日志都包含短期提示,半数学生的学习日志包含长期提示。自我效能通过自我报告进行评估,而策略的使用则通过自我报告和学习日志中的定性数据进行测量。学习成果通过课程考试进行评估。短期提示增加了自我报告的认知和元认知策略的使用,以及认知策略使用的数量。然而,这并不影响预测学习结果的自我效能感。无论提示是否继续,自我报告的认知和元认知策略使用情况以及自我效能感都有所下降。定性数据表明,无论在什么条件下,学习者使用认知策略的数量都保持稳定。结果表明,短期提示能激活认知和元认知策略的使用。学习日记中的长期提示对策略使用、自我效能感和成绩没有影响。未来的研究应调查长期提示的可能增强因素,如反馈、适应性提示或额外支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
期刊最新文献
Fostering university students’ online reading: effects of teacher-led strategy training embedded in a digital literacy course Infusing teacher-preparation curriculum with case-based instruction focused on culturally responsive, sustaining pedagogy: comparing instructor-facilitated and instructor-supported approaches Effects of short- and long-term prompting in learning journals on strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes Designing to support equity-as-transformation perspectives for multilingual science learners Investigating the role of an inquiry-based science lab on students’ scientific literacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1