Abstract

We systematically accompanied classes of five German Commercial High Schools (apprenticeship in business administration; N=355) over a period of two schools years. Classes were trained in authentic, real-life economic understanding using computer-based learning environments added by providing assistance on motivation, on cognitive and meta-cognitive learning strategies, on a combination of motivation and learning strategies, or no additional assistance. Our observed learning processes are based on the software and dataset of a simulated model company using multimedia techniques which we developed and tested in former studies.

The results are focused on the description of learning processes over time in contrast to a selective treatment under laboratory conditions. Considering the different assistances in learning we found significant differences on the quality of learning outcomes. The effects were mediated by self-regulative states, but not regarding personal traits. They indicate different frequencies in the use of self-regulative states relevant for the learning outcome, and therefore indicate a new theoretical perspective on self-regulation as learning competence which assumes a central role between the poles of habitual (traits) and situational (states) learning components.

The objectives of the study refer to the following points:

1. self-regulation is tested as a theoretical construct with regard to practical teaching impulses;
2. self-regulated learning is described as learning competence which assumes a central role between the poles of habitual (traits) and situational (states) learning components;
3. self-regulation is introduced as an instructional approach. Schools emphasize that students should be equipped for self-regulated learning.

So the present study focused on instructional assistance - then to become a self-regulated learner, student has to learn to regulate the use of information-processing modes, the learning process, and the self. Especially regarding the importance of regulating the self, the focus of theoretical as well as empirical research is shifting from studying isolated cognitive processes to studying cognition in interaction with motivation (BOEKAERTS, 1999, ROZENDAAL, MINNAERT, & BOEKAERTS, 2005). In the last years, research in the field of learning patterns and learning psychology has identified several characteristic ways on regulating information-processing modes, learning processes, and the self (WEINSTEIN, & MAYER, 1986; BIGGS, 1987; ENTWISTLE, 1988; BOEKARTS, 1999).

The following theories have been singled out for the subsequent representations of the concept of self-regulation:

1. the model of self-regulated learning according to BOEKAERTS (1997; 1999; 2002),
2. the socio-cognitive approach to self-regulation according to ZIMMERMANN (1990; 2000) and
3. (the trait-state-model approach to self-regulation derived from these theories and implemented within the framework of the present study (WINTHER, 2006).

The acquisition of a wide range of task competencies, from personal skills to academic learning strategies, emerge in a series of regulatory skill levels: We are convinced that self-regulated learning can be described by contrasting trait- and state-perspectives on learning: traits are considered as relatively stable personality qualities, general learning strategies and methods, prior knowledge, motivational orientation; states as actualized learning behaviour and learning reflection on current learning units/sequences. The potential of traits relevant to learning is rarely introduced in current situations but results from the learner's contention with the current given learning situation.

The learning behaviour introduced in this situation as an action model is thus independent of the learner's trait potential on the one hand and the individual evaluation of the given situation on the other. The evaluation and action patterns of a learner come into play as state dimensions: the results prove that the coherencies of evaluation and action patterns change subject to the current given situation. Furthermore, they show that the regulative action pattern mediates the influence of the evaluation components filtered out of the situation on the learning performance.

Methods

The research on self-regulation in learning processes suffers from two limitations (NURMI, & AUNOLA, 2005; WINTHER, in press):

• First, a replication of effects of self-regulation in classroom and school context with cross-lagged longitudinal data is often missing (SPINATH & SPINATH, 2005).
• Second, against the background of the contextual character of self-regulation there is a need to study students' understanding and monitoring of cognition, meta-cognition and motivation focusing on the actual purposeful level of engagement linked to the current level of cognition, meta-cognition, and motivation (WOLTERS, 2003a; 2003b).

In addition follows that the relevance of assistance on self-regulation within engagement is contextual - so learning problems vary across tasks or contexts (SEEGERS, & BOEKAERTS, 1993).

The present study wants to overcome these limitations identifying typical self-regulative components on learning over a period of three different units (three longitudinal measuring points) on the one hand. On the other hand contextual self-regulative states on learning processes come into play: our results prove that the coherencies of self-regulative states change subject to the current given situation.

Furthermore, self-regulative states are relevant mediators for learning in different ways:

1. as motivators or incentives for increasing performance (learning competence), and
2. as information for the interplay of relevant learning variables on current tasks (instructional prompts).

We ran our research as quasi-experimental design in five different German Commercial High Schools for the subject business administration in the State of Lower Saxony, Germany. The sample comprised 353 students (age of the students: 17-18 years). The computer-based learning modules as well as modules of traditional classroom teaching were implemented in all classes. Students as well as teachers and teachers on probation of the experimental group received additional assistance in the form of mentoring programs for self-regulation.

The programs are structured in three different units: Unit 'informing' makes learning intentions transparent for the students and teachers; unit 'sensitization' offers practical challenges. Students as well as teachers have to devise exercises that are based on specific class contents. Unit 'transfer' implements mentoring concepts to support the practical relevance of learning using handouts and case studies.

Results

According to learning traits our results replicate the findings of comparable studies regarding regulative traits (in terms of learning-associated properties and capabilities): As meaningful predictors we identified motivational traits (ß=.22*) compared with cognitive traits. The structural equation model supported empirically the assumption that students with favourable initial motivation have a better mode of learning activities, a higher potential to use learning strategies (without excessive demands), and thus performed better. In doing so, students' motivational predispositions influence the regulative proceeding with respect to learning conditions and affect the way of students' learning and performing. Using additional structural equation modeling on state level of learning the effects between students' evaluation pattern and action pattern as well the effects on students' situational performance regarding three different learning sequences were examined.

The level of students' pattern of action can be forecast significantly by their perception regarding the learning environment. An examination of the standardized regression weights matrix in the table indicates that the students' environmental perception is closely related to their behaviour ( (T1) = .38***; (T2) = .50***; (T3) = .47***); students' pattern of action is positively associated with their performance ( (T1) = .18***; (T2) = .20***, (T3) = .34***). The estimates are statistically significant at p-value lower .001.

Causal modelling also indicates that there is a modest significant relationship between the students' evaluation pattern and their performance ( (T1) = .09*; (T2) = .13*, (T3) = .05); this is an important indication of the effectiveness of the executive model. The motivation to sustain the level of action depends on environmental perceptions. Furthermore, using analyses of variance as well as simple effect studies the comparison between computer-based learning modules and classroom teaching emphasizes the advantages of the computer-based learning modules.

The practical significance for empirical differences was on a middle level. Using combined effect studies we conclude that the additional mentoring programs have only a small effect if computer-based learning environments are used. Not using computer-based learning environments, the additional mentoring programs have a high effect. On the one hand these programs clearly support the quality of students' behavior. On the other hand, programs encourage the variety of instructional procedures - a relevant focus on meaningful learning. The project work aimed at ascertaining the learner's motivation, learning strategies and meta-cognition for the objectives and contents currently discussed and correlating them to one another. Consequently, we attempted to record individual personality variables and configurable stimuli of the learning situations in their interdependency.

The basis for this approach is a didactically designed and content-integrated encouragement program: for self-regulated learning, a teacher training program and coordinated case scenarios have been developed for the learners. This content-integrated approach is primarily based upon two perspectives:

1. the acceptance of materials in the case of the participating teachers and thus the practical applicability of the material development is increased.
2. As has already been shown in the preceding sections, both the literature and the empirical results point out the necessity for distinguishing between trait and state characteristics of motivation and meta-cognition.

The study was run together with about 35 teachers (including the principals and 10 student teachers) of the five schools and a Studienseminar (an institution which is heading the second phase of teacher education). As it is supported by the German Research Council and the State Ministry of Education, the learning environment, the training handbooks and training material and the results are widely used for initial and further teacher education for commercial schools. The material, partly, will become part of the official curriculum set by the State.

Bibliography

• BOEKAERTS, M. (1997). Self-Regulated Learning: A new Concept embraced by Researchers, Policy Makers, Educators, Teachers, and Students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161-186.
• BOEKAERTS, M. (1999). Self-Regulated Learning: Where We Are Today. International Journal of Education Research, 31, 445-457.
• BOEKAERTS, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach. Learning and Instruction, 12, 589-604.
• BOEKAERTS, M., PINTRICH, P. R. & ZEIDNER, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego et al.: Academic Press.
• BRANSFORD, J. D., BROWN. A. L. & COCKING, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• KUHL, J. (1998). Wille und Persönlichkeit: Funktionsanalyse der Selbststeuerung. Psychologische Rundschau, 49 (2), 61-77.
• LEWALTER, D. (2003). Cognitive Strategies for Learning from Static and Dynamic Visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
• NURMI, J.-E. & AUNOLA, K. (2005). Task Motivation During the First School Years: A Person-Oriented Approach to Longitudinal Data. Learning and Instruction, 15, 103-122.
• 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. 451-502). San Diego et al.: Academic Press.
• POKAY, P. & BLUMENFELD, P. C. (1990). Predicting Achievement Early and Late in the Semester: The Role of Motivatiuon and Use of Learning Strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41-50.
• RHEINBERG, F. (2004). Motivationsdiagnostik. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• RHEINBERG, F., VOLLMEYER, R. & BURNS, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen. Diagnostica, 47, 57-66.
• ROZENDAAL, J. S., MINNAERT, A. & BOEKAERTS, M. (2005). The Influence of Teacher Perceived Administration of Self-Regulated Learning on Students' Motivation and Information-Processing. Learning and Instruction, 15, 141-160.
• SCHIEFELE, U., STREBLOW, L. ERMGASSEN, U. & MOSCHNER, B. (2003). Lernmotivation und Lernstrategien als Bedingungen der Studienleistung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 185-198.
• SEEGERS, G. & BOEKAERTS, M. (1993). Task Motivation and Mathematics Achievement in Actual Task Situations. Learning and Instruction, 3, 133-150.
• SPINATH, B. & SPINATH, F. M. (2005). Longitudinal Analyses of the Link between Learning Motivation and Competence Beliefs Among Elementary School Children. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 87-102.
• WEINSTEIN, C. E. & MAYER, R. (1986). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
• WIGFIELD, A. (1994). Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation: A Developmental Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
• WIGFIELD, A. & ECCLES, J. S. (2000). Expectancy Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81
• WILD, K.-P. & SCHIEFELE, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und Reliabilität eines neuen Fragebogens. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15, 185-200.
• WINTHER, E. (in press). Measurement of Motivation: A State Perspective on Motivation in Learning Objects. In F. Achtenhagen, & F. Oser (Eds.), Initiating Changes of Teachers' Perception of Knowledge and Action in VET. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• WINTHER, E. (2006). Motivation in Lernprozessen. Konzepte in der Unterrichtspraxis von Wirtschaftsgymnasien. Wiesbaden: DUV.
• WOLTERS, C. (2003a). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189-205.
• WOLTERS, C. (2003b). Understanding Procrastination from a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179-187.
• ZIMMERMAN, B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: On Overview. In Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3-17.
• 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. 13-41). San Diego et al.: Academic Press.
• ZIMMERMAN, B. J. & MARTINEZ-PONS, M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing Students Use of Self-regulated Learning Strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.
• ZIMMERMAN, B. J. & MARTINEZ-PONS, M. (1990). Students Differences in Self-Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and Giftedness to Self-Efficacy and Strategy Use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.