How are learning strategies reflected in the eyes? Combining results from self‐reports and eye‐tracking

EditorialThe intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy use BackgroundThe 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

“…Similarly, Catrysse et al . () and Scheiter et al . () use observational data collected during performance using eye tracking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy use

Dinsmore

Fryer

2018

“…As such, information on which family members are present in this special issue is warranted. From the two studies from the SAL perspective in this special issue (Catrysse et al ., ; Fryer & Vermunt, ), the study by Catrysse et al . () relied on the Vermunt model (Vermunt & Vermetten, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It brings together seven contributions, focusing on learning either during higher education or during last years of high school. Three different theoretical perspectives are represented: self‐regulated learning (SRL, Deekens et al ., ; Scheiter et al ., ; Winne, ), model of domain learning (MDL, Dinsmore & Zoellner, ; Parkinson & Dinsmore, ), and student approaches to learning (SAL, Catrysse et al ., ; Fryer & Vermunt, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relation between cognitive and metacognitive processing: Building bridges between the SRL, MDL, and SAL domains

Coertjens

2018

Aim. The main aim of this commentary was to connect the insights from the contributions of the special issue on the intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy use. The seven contributions in this special issue stem from three perspectives: self-regulated learning (SRL), model of domain learning (MDL), or the student approaches to learning (SAL).Procedure. Prior to combining insights from different studies, the definition and operationalization of cognitive and metacognitive processing in the seven contributions is described. Subsequently, the grain size and statistical methods used in these contributions are discussed. This information allows us to -albeit cautiously -combine the results from the different studies regarding the relation between cognitive and metacognitive processing. Conclusion.Deep processing and self-regulation/monitoring showed a strong correlation, regardless of the theoretical framework or data collection method chosen. The strength of the correlation between surface processing and metacognitive processing differed, however, between the studies. Pathways for future research on students' cognitive and metacognitive processing are suggested, at the methodological level as well as regarding the conceptualization of unregulated learning and surface processing.

“…Operating from a different framework, Catrysse et al . () used first‐year psychology students’ responses on the Inventory of Learning Patterns‐Short Version (Donche & Van Petegem, ) to craft learner profiles. Eye‐tracking data were then gathered from a subgroup of the different profiles with the goal of linking profiles to regulatory behaviour.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking down the road: Future directions for research on depth and regulation of strategic processing

Alexander

2018

Purpose. The primary goal of this commentary was to consider the future directions that researchers dealing with levels and regulation of strategies and with approaches to learning may wish to pursue in the years to come.Procedure. In order to accomplish this goal, the first step was to look for any common ground shared by authors contributing to this Special Issue. That common ground represented a convergence of evidence for these programmes of research; in effect, where they intersect. Next, theoretical, methodological, and data-analytic barriers that have long impeded progress within and across these research communities were identified.Outcome. Recommendations were offered that might serve to diminish or remove those existing barriers and, thus, open new avenues of inquiry.It is a privilege to serve as a commentator for this Special Issue that examines the complicated relation between depth and regulation of strategic processing, especially in the light of the international scholars chosen as contributors. According to the editors, the purpose of this issue is to consider how levels of cognitive strategy use among students relate to their metacognitive or self-regulatory behaviours (Dinsmore & Fryer, 2018). Contributors to the issue were to be guided by three overarching questions:1. What is the association between cognitive and metacognitive processing during academic performance in varied contexts (e.g., text, technology rich environments, university settings)? 2. How does the shifting developmental landscape change associations between depth of processing and monitoring and regulation of learning on academic performance? 3. Do individuals' competence help explain associations between monitoring, regulation, and strategic processing? (p. 2)To the credit of the editors, these are timely, important, and ambitious questions to be posed at this juncture when theory and research into strategic processing approach the half-century mark. Any issue that effectively addresses any one of these complex questions