Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Critical Analysis Amanda L. Bradley California State ni!ersity"#onterey Bay

$r. Loc%&ood IST '() Learning Theories *e+ruary ,- ()1.

IST'() / 0a1er ( / 1age 1 of 2

CRITICAL ANALYSIS Introduction

Self-regulated learning of basic arithmetic skills: A longitudinal study is the article that I focused on for this 1ro3ect. The 1ur1ose of this study &as to e4amine the relations +et&een elementary school children5s math s%ills and their use of math strategies- loo% into their metacogniti!e a+ilities and moti!ational +eliefs- and to study ho& students &ith math s%ills at different le!els !ary de1ending on their o&n self"regulation. This is a True"e41erimental study due to the fact that 1artici1ants are su+di!ided into grou1s of 6ery good- 7ood- and Not"so"good students after testing. It has a high degree of control- and is testing for cause and effect relationshi1s +et&een the student5s strategy and metacognition. Inger Throndsen- led this study due to the fact that most other studies e4amining 1rimary school children only e4amined their strategies &hen sol!ing 1ro+lems and did not loo% into self"regulated learning as &ell. In this study the hy1otheses &as not clearly stated- ho&e!er- the 8uestions +eing as%ed throughout the e41eriment and the o+3ecti!es &ere clearly and e41licitly stated. The researchers e41ressed a 1ositi!e +ias to&ards the study +y continuously com1aring this study to 1ast studies that did not as com1rehensi!e of a 3o+. The study descri+ed the students as +eing %no&ledgea+le and 1ositi!e com1ared to older students. The researchers made a fairly con!incing argument on the im1ortance of their t&o research 8uestions. 9ach of their research 8uestions is +ased on 1rior research conducted +y others &ith a focus on age relating to moti!ationself"confidence- and com1etence. :o&e!er- the researchers determined a need of 1rimary students focusing on strategies in math and the children5s metacognition and moti!ation. Research Procedures (Methods) The data in this study &as collected at three different times. The first data collection &as in the fall of the student5s second grade year- then again in the s1ring of second grade- and finally in the fall of their third grade year. Tests &ere gi!en to the t&enty"se!en students all from the same

IST'() / 0a1er 1

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

class. These tests &ere focused on +asic arithmetic for their age le!el. Inter!ie&s &ere gi!en one" on"one &ith the students in order to assess the student5s strategy use- metacognition- and moti!ation. Based on their assessment results and inter!ie&s- the students &ere di!ided into 1erformance grou1s called: !ery good students- good students- and not"so"good students. The sam1ling 1rocedure &as not com1letely re1resentati!e of the target 1o1ulation. T&enty" se!en students &ere selected &ho all had +een in the same class together the 1re!ious school year as &ell. Thus- the student5s le!el of %no&ledge is not re1resentati!e of the &hole school- county- or e!en second graders around the country- +ut rather of students &ho ha!e had the same classmates and these t&o teachers. ;ther data &as re1resentati!e of all second graders. The student5s ages !aried from < years = months to 2 years ( months &hich is re1resentati!e from that grade year. There &ere no &ithdra&als of students during the time 1eriod of the study. The school &as located in a large county of Nor&ay and the study consisted of 11 females and 1< males. The measurements are mostly relia+le and !alid according to the data. The data indicated some areas of discre1ancies among scores. The study gi!es the ta+les and ru+rics that &ere used in order to determine the results. All assessments included 8uestions that &ere age a11ro1riate for the students. The student5s !er+al ans&ers did not a11ear to +e influenced. The students &ere only e41laining ho& they sol!ed the 1ro+lem- and their strategy &as gi!en a score +ased on its com1le4ity le!el. According to the studies o&n data there &as an inter"scorer relia+ility of =(>. Audio recording &ere ta%en of the students strategies for sol!ing the 1ro+lems and these &ere scored +y a different scorer than the 1erson determining if the ans&ers &ere correct. All metacogniti!e 8uestions &ere scored a )- 1- or (. Ten res1onses &ere selected and the scores &ere recalculated to determine an ??> agreement le!el among scorers. The student5s moti!ation &as measured orally +y as%ing the students to rate themsel!es using a Li%ert"scale on the li%elihood that they &ould +e a+le to sol!e +asic arithmetic 1ro+lems. An a!erage score and standard de!iations IST'() / 0a1er 1

CRITICAL ANALYSIS from the total score &as ta%en. 94am1le 8uestions on student5s moti!ational +eliefs and

metacogniti!e %no&ledge are 1ro!ided &ith the data. It a11ears from the data that attem1ts &ere made to get the most accurate data. The research 1rocedures &ere a11ro1riate for the age of the children and for the information +eing collected. All standardi@ed assessments &ere grade le!el a11ro1riate. All students &ere 1resented &ith only one 1ro+lem at a time- and &ere encouraged to sol!e it any &ay that &or%ed +est for them. 9ach 1ro+lem &as 1resented +oth !isually and !er+ally for all students. All strategies &ere gi!en a ran%ing of hierarchy +ased on 1re!ious research on de!elo1ment. A structured one"on" one inter!ie& &as also gi!en to the students. The inter!ie&ee remained consistent throughout the study. ;ther studies &ere e4amined and incor1orated into the decisions to collect and analy@e the data in this study. *or e4am1le- +ased on 1re!ious studies it &as determined that an inter!ie& session is a11ro1riate for children of this age and that more than one ty1e of metacogniti!e %no&ledge ought to +e measured. The research 1rocedures &ere descri+ed &ith details and e4am1les- ho&e!er- they &ere not detailed enough to fully re1licate all of the studies due to the fact that not all assessment or inter!ie& 8uestions are gi!en- only e4am1les of them. Research Results To the +est of my %no&ledge it seems that a11ro1riate statistical techni8ues &ere used and used correctly. The research re1ort does not gi!e each students ans&ers only the mean and standard de!iation so &ithout the actual data it cannot +e determined if these scores are accurate. :o&e!ereach ta+le in the study seems to accurately 1ortray &hat &as +eing tested. It also a11ears from the ta+les that all t&enty"se!en students &ere accounted for throughout the study. Standard de!iation is included in all results to gi!e the students range. 9ach !aria+le from the study did emerge in the results &ith meaningful data. The results

IST'() / 0a1er 1

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

'

indicated the highest 1erforming students used retrie!al strategies &hereas the lo&er scoring students used o!ert and co!ert strategies to sol!e 1ro+lems. It also indicated that the Anot"so"good5 students consistently had the highest 1ercentage of incorrect strategy use. In the testing of metacognition o!er the study the Anot"so"good5 student5s scores decreased +y their third grade year &hile the A!ery good students5 metacogniti!e scores sho&ed an increase. The results of moti!ation indicated that it &as mainly in year three that students +egan to attri+ute failure to not 1utting forth the effort. Also- +y year three it &as noted that the not"so"good students de!elo1ed lo&er self" efficacy. Discussion of Results The results of the data analyses did su11ort &hat the findings of the study indicate. The data sho&ed that all of the student5s 1erformance during the study &as related to the use of higher le!el strategies- metacognition- and self"efficacy. 9!ery 1artici1ant in the study sho&ed from their data that good arithmetic &as related to ad!anced strategies- metacogniti!e com1etence- and high self" efficacy. As students increased in age the data indicated that students &ho &ere 1erforming at a lo&er le!el used counting strategies rather than retrie!al. All ta+les are re1resentati!e of the results that &ere gi!en in the study. The researcher5s e41lanations of the findings &ere 1resented in a reasona+le &ay. All ta+les and data &ere clearly e41lained. 941lanations could ha!e +een e!en +etter if e4am1les of student res1onses &ere also included in the data rather than 3ust num+ers. The researchers e41lain the differences that are 1resent and ho& each result &as calculated. *or e4am1le- they descri+ed that in order to ha!e statistical analysis- they had to calculate a mean score +ased on the !alues the students ga!e of their self"efficacy le!el. The researchers did seem to dra& reasona+le im1lications from the findings +ased on my o&n

IST'() / 0a1er 1

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

<

%no&ledge and understanding. They admitted to +eing una+le to dra& conclusions of ho& student5s choices are +ased on metacognition or unconscious thought. The researchers &ere a+le to dra& im1lications such as that metacogniti!e %no&ledge may im1act student5s success and incorrect use of strategies may +e related to lac% of %no&ledge.

IST'() / 0a1er 1

CRITICAL ANALYSIS References

Throndsen- I. B()11C. Self"Regulated Learning of Basic Arithmetic S%ills: A Longitudinal Study. British Journal of Educational Psychology- 81B.C- ''?"'2?.

IST'() / 0a1er 1