Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Based on research on self-regulation during learning, this experiment seeks to investigate the effectiveness of explicit vs. implicit instruction of self-regulation strategies. In a pre-post control group design we are planning to test whether students apply more self-regulation strategies when they receive explicit strategy instruction (the instructor explicitly explains a certain strategy and emphasizes the benefit of using this strategy) compared to implicit strategy instruction (the instructor describes how he proceeds strategically during task execution, but without explicitly mentioning a strategy or its benefit for the user). We compare the effectiveness of two instruction videos (EG 1: instruction of the task plus explicit strategy instruction; EG 2: instruction of the task plus implicit strategy instruction) with a control group that watches the instruction video for the task without any strategy instruction. Hypotheses: Our first research question addresses the effectiveness of both types of strategy instruction. Based on the literature that emphasizes the importance of explicitness during strategy instruction, we assume that EG 1 and EG 2 outperform the CG in terms of strategy application, and that EG 1 outperforms EG 2. Furthermore, we exploratively investigate whether this is reflected in the outcome of the problem solving task in the way that the students from EG 1 and EG 2 outperform the CG in solving the problem solving task, or whether the students of the CG perform equally good or better than the EGs due to higher cognitive load in the strategy instruction conditions. Finally, we investigate whether students’ prior knowledge on self-regulation strategies or whether their perceived benefit of using strategies moderates the effect of the instruction videos. We assume that students with low prior knowledge and with low perceived benefit of strategy use benefit more from the explicit strategy instruction. A priori power analysis conducted with G-Power suggests a sample size of N = 90 participants for the three-group design experiment (Alpha = .05; effect size f (ANOVA) = .25; Power (1-beta) = .95; number of group = 3; number of measurements = 2; Corr. among rep. measures = 0,3; nonsphericity correction = 1). Instruments: Strategy application: LIST questionnaire (offline) and thinking aloud (online) Perceived benefit of strategy use: additional benefit item to LIST questionnaire Strategy knowledge: MESH questionnaire Knowledge about ADHD: COACTIV test Problem solving task: coding scheme for task solution Analyses: We will perform ANOVAs with repeated measures in order to test the effect of the strategy instruction on strategy application, strategy knowledge, content knowledge about ADHD in the posttest. We expect a significant interaction effect time x group. Furthermore, we will compute an ANOVA to compare the outcome of the problem solving task (only posttest), expecting significant differences between the groups. We will perform hierarchical regression analyses to analyze longitudinal group differences in the written thinking-aloud protocol (=online assessment of self-reported application of metacognitive strategies during task execution). The moderator effect of perceived benefit and knowledge of strategy use will be examined by means of ANOVA including the pre-values as moderator variables. We assume a significant interaction effect between prior strategy knowledge and treatment respective between prior perceived benefit of strategy use and treatment. Data collection: The data collection will take place in the lab with group testing. Pre- and posttest will be conducted with Unipark. The problem solving task will be paper/pencil format. The data collection will start mid- November 2018 and is planned until 90 participants will be tested in the end of this year. Participants will be Psychology students of Goethe University Frankfurt. Participants will receive credits for their studies (Versuchspersonenstunden). The expected length of the data collection will be 120 minutes. Procedure of data collection: First the students will fill in a questionnaire on strategy knowledge (MESH questionnaire), their perception on strategy application as well as the perceived strategy use (LIST questionnaire and additional benefit item) and on their knowledge about ADHD (COACTIV test). Afterwards they answer a few questions on demographic data (gender, age, subject of study, number of semesters, high school examination grade). Then participants watch the instruction videos (CG: instruction video without any strategy instruction, EG 1: instruction of the task plus explicit strategy instruction; EG 2: instruction of the task plus implicit strategy instruction) and work on the problem solving task about ADHD (paper pencil). Every ten minutes (6x) the test leader/manager asks the students to fill in what they have been doing for the last 10 minutes during the task accomplishment (online assessment of self-reported use of metacognitive strategies via written thinking-aloud protocol). In the end the students will again fill in a questionnaire on strategy knowledge (MESH questionnaire), their perception on strategy application and the perceived strategy use (LIST questionnaire and additional benefit items) and on their knowledge about ADHD (COACTIV test). In order to assess the accomplishment of the problem-solving task, students’ end product will be systematically coded by means of a coding scheme developed prior to the data collection.