Prompting Cognitive and Metacognitive Processing in Writing-to-Learn Enhances Learning Outcomes
Sandra Hübner,M. Nückles,A. Renkl
Abstract:Prompting Cognitive and Metacognitive Processing in Writing-to-Learn Enhances Learning Outcomes Sandra Hubner (huebner@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de) Matthias Nuckles (nueckles@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de) Alexander Renkl (renkl@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de) University of Freiburg, Educational Psychologie, Engelbergerstr. 41 79085 Freiburg, Germany instructional support procedure for writing learning proto- cols. We present an experiment that analyzed the effects that various types of instructions for writing a learning protocol had on understanding and retention. Furthermore, we exam- ined how the specific instructions are reflected in the learn- ing protocols. Abstract Learning protocols are a promising follow-up course work. A learning protocol is a written explication of one’s learning processes and outcomes. According to the self-regulation view of writing-to-learn, such writing assignments have to be supported. In this study, learning protocols were structured by prompts to elicit important learning activities as they are pos- tulated in a cyclical model of self-regulated learning. An ex- periment (N = 103) was conducted in which students received either (a) no prompts, (b) cognitive prompts, (c) metacogni- tive prompts, (d) mixed prompts without planning-of- regulation prompts or, (e) mixed prompts including planning- of-regulation prompts. The groups with prompts outper- formed the control group on comprehension and retention measures. Furthermore, prompting all essential sub-processes of self-regulated learning (mixed prompts including planning- of-regulation prompts) was most effective. Theoretical Approaches to Writing-to-Learn Learning by writing can be considered from different theo- retical perspectives (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). According to the strong text view of writing-to-learn (e.g., Emig, 1977), the processes involved in writing share intrinsic similarities with thinking and learning processes. It is assumed that writing inherently fosters thinking and learning. In line with this assumption, empirical studies generally showed a superiority of learning journal groups over non-writing groups (Connor-Greene, 2000). However, following the meta-analysis of Bangert-Drowns et al., most writing-to-learn assignments yielded rather small effects, typically showing an effect size of .20 on average. Hence, writing per se does not necessarily foster learning to a prac- tically relevant degree. Rather, following Bangert-Drowns et al. conclusions, it is the specific type of writing assign- ment that strongly influences the learning processes and outcomes. In their meta-analysis, the most important mod- erator variable was the presence of prompts that stimulated metacognitive processing such as monitoring and regulation of one’s own learning processes. Bangert-Drowns et al. con- cluded that the available evidence clearly supports a self- regulation view of writing-to-learn rather than the strong text view. According to the self-regulation view, writing as such does not produce learning. Nevertheless, writing may serve as medium that facilitates the application of beneficial cognitive and metacognitive learning activities. However, as argued by Bangert-Drowns et al. (2004), students should explicitly be prompted to elicit the desirable learning activi- ties to a satisfactory degree. For example, Nuckles et al. (2004) analysed “naive” learning protocols of students who had only received brief and informal advice on how to write their protocols. They found that cognitive and metacognitive learning activities did not occur frequently. These results underscore the necessity to support the writing of learning protocols. How should the writing of learning protocols be sup- ported? Following current models of self-regulated learning (Winne, 1996; Zimmerman, 1999), students should be as- Keywords: writing-to-learn; self-regulated learning; prompts; cognitive and metacognitive learning processes; learning journals Introduction Typically, lesson or lecture contents “evaporate” rather quickly, for after the students have left the classroom, only a few continue to reflect on the learning contents. The stu- dents rarely elaborate and organize learning contents in a meaningful and coherent fashion. For example, they seldom come up with examples to put abstract concepts into effect. Also, students neither routinely monitor their understanding nor employ corresponding remedial activities. The writing of learning protocols is a method that helps to overcome these shortcomings (McCrindle & Christensen, 1995). A learning protocol represents a written explication of one’s own learning processes and outcomes. When such protocols are written in an extended period of time (e.g., a whole term or school year) we call it a “learning journal” (cf. McCrindle & Christensen). Learning protocols are especially appropriate for follow-up course work. They help students apply the previously mentioned cognitive and metacognitive activities. The writing of learning protocols has been shown to be effective in improving students’ learning across vari- ous educational settings and subjects (Cantrell, Fusaro, & Doughtery, 2000; McCrindle & Christensen, 1995). How- ever, there is also evidence that without appropriate instruc- tional support, students do not apply the learning protocol method in an optimal way (Nuckles, Schwonke, Berthold, & Renkl, 2004). To bridge this gap, we have developed an