File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/bjep.12209
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85041928096
- WOS: WOS:000424824300001
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy use
Title | The intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy use |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Citation | British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2018, v. 88, p. 1-8 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The focus of most educational research is to address how learners move towards more effective problem-solving or how learning during a task can be more facilitative to help those learners effectively solve future problems. The multitude of processes that individuals engage in during problem-solving or learning has been at the heart of empirical and theoretical inquiry designed to uncover how learners’ processing can best be facilitated to maximize educational and problem-solving outcomes. Lines of inquiry that are bound by type of process (e.g., self-regulatory processing versus metacognitive processing) or bound by a certain theoretical frame or model (e.g., Approaches to Learning versus Self-regulation) have led to mixed findings with regard to how different types of processing influence learning outcomes both across (e.g., Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012) and within certain theoretical frameworks or models (e.g., Asikainen & Gijbels, 2017). Among others, one possible explanation for these mixed findings may be that types of processing and frameworks or models of processing are necessarily incomplete or have been misspecified (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012). Misspecification could have its roots in the theoretical and geographical heritages, which have contributed to artificial divisions between overlapping areas of research with established models such as self-regulation and cognitive processing (e.g., model of domain learning and approaches to learning). Attempts to integrate these different types of processing – cognitive and metacognitive – have become more numerous with many recent attempts at reconciling epistemic and metacognitive or self-regulatory processes (e.g., Hofer & Sinatra, 2010; Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010; Muis, 2007; Zusho, 2017). However, less has been done to address the relations between metacognitive or self-regulatory processes and cognitive processing, with some notable exceptions (e.g., Berthold, Nu€ckles, & Renkl, 2007; Garner, 1988). Thus, the purpose of this special issue is to address the interplay between metacognitive or self-regulatory processing with cognitive processing. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/251535 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Dinsmore, DLD | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fryer, LK | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-03-01T03:40:49Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-03-01T03:40:49Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2018, v. 88, p. 1-8 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/251535 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The focus of most educational research is to address how learners move towards more effective problem-solving or how learning during a task can be more facilitative to help those learners effectively solve future problems. The multitude of processes that individuals engage in during problem-solving or learning has been at the heart of empirical and theoretical inquiry designed to uncover how learners’ processing can best be facilitated to maximize educational and problem-solving outcomes. Lines of inquiry that are bound by type of process (e.g., self-regulatory processing versus metacognitive processing) or bound by a certain theoretical frame or model (e.g., Approaches to Learning versus Self-regulation) have led to mixed findings with regard to how different types of processing influence learning outcomes both across (e.g., Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012) and within certain theoretical frameworks or models (e.g., Asikainen & Gijbels, 2017). Among others, one possible explanation for these mixed findings may be that types of processing and frameworks or models of processing are necessarily incomplete or have been misspecified (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012). Misspecification could have its roots in the theoretical and geographical heritages, which have contributed to artificial divisions between overlapping areas of research with established models such as self-regulation and cognitive processing (e.g., model of domain learning and approaches to learning). Attempts to integrate these different types of processing – cognitive and metacognitive – have become more numerous with many recent attempts at reconciling epistemic and metacognitive or self-regulatory processes (e.g., Hofer & Sinatra, 2010; Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010; Muis, 2007; Zusho, 2017). However, less has been done to address the relations between metacognitive or self-regulatory processes and cognitive processing, with some notable exceptions (e.g., Berthold, Nu€ckles, & Renkl, 2007; Garner, 1988). Thus, the purpose of this special issue is to address the interplay between metacognitive or self-regulatory processing with cognitive processing. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | British Journal of Educational Psychology | - |
dc.title | The intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy use | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Fryer, LK: fryer@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Fryer, LK=rp02148 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/bjep.12209 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85041928096 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 284341 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 88 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 8 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000424824300001 | - |