1. Daniel C. Moos, PhD Amanda Miller (Elementary Teacher)

2. Overview Introduction Context Theoretical Frameworks Rationale of study Overview of Study Method & procedure Results Discussion: Theoretical & Methodological implications Acknowledgements Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013

3. Context: Hypermedia Learning Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013 Non-linear Multiple Representations

4. Theoretical Frameworks (I) Social Cogntive Approach (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000) )

5. Theoretical Frameworks (II) Information and Processing Approach (Winne & Hadwin,1998)

6. Pintrich (2000) Theoretical Frameworks (III) PHASES CognitionMotivationBehaviorContext Planning Monitoring Control Reaction & Reflection Prior knowledge activation Metacognitive monitoring Selection of strategies Task interest Strategy selection for managing motivation Time and effort planning Monitoring of time, effort Perception of task/context Monitoring changing context Evaluate task/context AREAS Monitoring of motivation Cognitive judgments Affective reactions Behavioral strategies, such as help-seeking Behavioral reflection Contextual choices

7. Theoretical Frameworks (IV) Different models, shared assumptions: 1. Idiosyncratic goals are constructed; self- regulated learning is a proactive, constructive process 2. Cognition, behavior, and motivation can be potentially monitored and regulated 3. Behavior is goal-directed and can be modified to achieve a desired goal  “Dynamic”; “Event”; “Recursive”  Empirical support for theoretical assumptions  Differences between and within learners

8. “Knowledge acquisition” (Moos & Azevedo, 2008)

9. “Knowledge verification” (Moos & Azevedo, 2008)

10. Rationale SRL highly predictive of learning outcomes in variety of contexts with various developmental groups (Bembenutty, 2011; Butler, Cartier, Schnellert, 2011; Cleary & Sandars, 2011; Cleary & Platten, 2013; DiBenedetto & Bembenutty, 2013; McPherson & Renwick, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013); particularly with hypermedia (Azevedo et al. 2012; Greene et al. 2013; Moos & Stewart, 2013) Differences between students’ SRL and individual changes within learning tasks Stability of SRL processes across tasks for individual students?

11. Research Questions Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013 To what extent are variables from the forethought phase (motivation constructs) stable across learning tasks? To what extent are variables from the other phases (planning, monitoring, and learning strategies) stable across learning tasks? To what extent do SRL processes from the forethought phase predict SRL processes from other phases?

12. Participants & Measures Participants (N = 37) Pre-service teachers from a Midwest college 32 females (86%) and 5 females (14%) Measures Mental Model Essays (Azevedo & Cromley, 2005; Chi, 2005) : Prior domain knowledge and learning outcomes for two topics Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991) : Self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task value, control beliefs Concurrent Think-Aloud protocol (Ericsson, 2006 ): SRL during learning (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001)

13. Pretest Posttest Walkthrough & Directions Hypermedia (Circulatory/ Constructivism) Procedure for each learning task Participants individually run Each participant completed two learning task (order counterbalanced) Data Prior Knowledge SRL Learning Outcomes MSLQ Motivation Procedure

14. Results (I) Expectancy X Value (Eccles & Wigfield, 20002)

15. Results (II)

16. Discussion Changes in learning task content can affect first phase of SRL (motivation) Do changes in the first phase affect subsequent SRL phases? Maybe, Maybe Not

17. Discussion IPT (Winne & Hadwin, 1995) Pintrich 4x4 (Pintrich, 2000) Social Cognitive (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013) MASRL model (Efklides, 2011) Cognitive conditions (Beliefs and Attributions) Planning phase of motivation (Task Value) Reciprocal Causation (Self-efficacy) Person level & Task × Person level (Achievement Goals) Role of Individualized Feedback that accounts for the dynamic nature of SRL: “Skill” (capacity) and “Will” (motivation) What factors affect the dynamic relationship between phases? Are there more stable, trait-like SRL processes?

18. Limitations & Future Directions Methodological challenges: Triangulating with multiple measures and using combination methods (e.g., SRL microanalysis; Cleary, Callan, & Zimmerman, 2012) Longitudinal data: Some SRL processes change over longer periods of time Developmental and/or knowledge factors Sample size

19. Acknowledgments: Maria DiBenedetto Drs. Bembenutty, Butler, Cleary, Schnellert, Schunk, MchPherson Greg Callan and Amanda Miller Contact Information: Email: dmoos@gustavus.edu Website: homepages.gac.edu/~dmoos