Modeling Domain Learning: Profiles From the Field of Special Education.

Alexander, Patricia A.; Sperl, Christopher T.; Buehl, Michelle M.; Fives, Helenrose; Chiu, Shuhui

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.545

Cited by 88 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relation hypotheses were supported by previous investigations of the MDL, all be they through the use strategy checklists (e.g., Alexander, Sperl, Buehl, Fives, & Chiu, 2004;Murphy & Alexander, 2002 (Laxman, 2010). Additionally it has been found that students engage in more peer learning strategies and critical thinking during openended tasks (Lodewyk, Winne, & Jamieson-Noel, 2009).…”

Section: Research Questionssupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Empirical evidence using the MDL has suggested that there is an increase in both domain and topic knowledge through these stages of expertise development (e.g., Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995). Additionally, the MDL hypothesizes and empirical evidence has demonstrated that at acclimation the learner is relying primarily on surface-processing strategies, while individuals in proficiency rely primarily on deep-processing strategies (e.g., Alexander, 1997;Alexander et al, 2004).…”

Section: The Model Of Domain Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The range of individual differences that could potentially play a role in moderating the relation between depth of processing and performance are many. Based on previous research (e.g., Alexander, Sperl, Buehl, Fives, & Chiu, 2004;Murphy & Alexander, 2002), prior knowledge was chosen as a possible mediator in the relation between depth of processing and performance (research question 2). Further explication of this choice is described in the MDL section to follow.…”

Section: Theoretical Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multidimensional Investigation of Deep and Surface Processing

Dinsmore¹

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the psychological literature, there is the general assumption that deeper-level processing should be consistently associated with better academic performance (e.g., Block, 2009). However, studies exploring the relation between depth of processing (e.g., deep and surface processing) and learning outcomes have not produced consistent results. The argument guiding the current investigation was that these inconsistent findings regarding the relation between depth of processing and performance may be attributable to individual and situational factors that moderate this relation.Specifically, in this study, the potential moderating effects of a situational factor (i.e., text type) and an individual factor (i.e., subject-matter knowledge) on the relation between depth of processing and performance were investigated. Support for these individual and situational factors were derived from a systematic review of the literature that also examined conceptualization and operationalization of deep and surface processing. recall measure and open-ended task. Plausible explanations for these findings and implications for future research and instructional practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Research Questionssupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: The Model Of Domain Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multidimensional Investigation of Deep and Surface Processing

Dinsmore¹

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather than treating background knowledge solely as a construct-irrelevant nuisance, it also can be seen as an opportunity to improve the interpretation of reading scores and to model good practice. Like key theories of reading (e.g., construction-integration [Kintsch, 1998] (Adams, Bell, & Perfetti, 1995;Alexander, Sperl, Buehl, & Chiu, 2004;Cromley & Azevedo, 2007;Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999;Fincher-Kiefer, Post, Greene, & Voss, 1988;Hambrick & Engle, 2002;McNamara, 1997McNamara, , 2001McNamara, de Vega, & O'Reilly, 2007;McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996;Murphy & Alexander, 2002;O'Reilly & McNamara, 2007a, 2007bOzuru, Best, Bell, Witherspoon, & McNamara, 2007;Ozuru, Dempsey, & McNamara, 2009;Recht & Leslie, 1988;Schneider, Körkel, & Weinert, 1989;Shapiro, 2004;Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss, 1979;Thompson & Zamboanga, 2004;van den Broek, 2012;Voss & Silfies, 1996;Walker, 1987). While background knowledge can facilitate comprehension, in some cases background knowledge can actually interfere with reading comprehension when knowledge is irrelevant or violated by the text (Kucer, 2011).…”

Section: Background or Prior Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Reading for Understanding: How Performance Moderators and Scenarios Impact Assessment Design

O’Reilly

Sabatini

2013

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its 1947 founding, ETS has conducted and disseminated scientific research to support its products and services, and to advance the measurement and education fields. In keeping with these goals, ETS is committed to making its research freely available to the professional community and to the general public. Published accounts of ETS research, including papers in the ETS Research Report series, undergo a formal peer-review process by ETS staff to ensure that they meet established scientific and professional standards. All such ETS-conducted peer reviews are in addition to any reviews that outside organizations may provide as part of their own publication processes. Performance moderators are characteristics of students that impact reading performance but are not considered a part of the reading construct. These include (a) background and prior knowledge, (b) metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies and behavior, (c) reading strategies, and (d) student motivation and engagement. In this paper, we argue there is added value in incorporating performance moderators into a reading test design. We characterize added value with respect to the validity of the claims derived from test scores, the interpretation of the test scores, and the relevance to instruction. As a second aim, we present a case for using scenariobased assessments and how they can be used to integrate into the test design both the performance moderators as well as other features that make the assessment more instructionally relevant.

show abstract

“…The expertise/novice literature suggests that it is the high level thinkers, the experts in a domain, that are the least likely to be metacognitively aware of knowledge judgments because they make them automatically and routinely (Alexander et al 2004, Chi et al 1982. Assessments need to be attuned to these developmental shifts.…”

Section: Developmental Aspects Of Epistemic Metacognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: musings on an emerging field

Hofer

Sinatra

2009

Metacognition Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contributors to this special issue explore the connections between metacognition and personal epistemology. This commentary on the five articles addresses definitional concerns regarding both epistemology and metacognition, discusses the conceptual relation between the constructs, critiques methodological approaches, and suggests developmental considerations in this type of research.Individuals' beliefs about knowledge and knowing have captured the attention of educational psychologists for the past two decades, because of their recognized importance in the learning process. Researchers have worked to identify how epistemic beliefs relate to learning strategies (Schommer et al. 1992), motivation (Buehl and Alexander 2005), conceptual change (Mason et al. 2008), and other such variables, as well as how beliefs function both cognitively and metacognitively. The research in this special issue continues and advances this view, exploring the intersection of epistemic beliefs, metacognition, and self-regulation. These researchers have delved bravely into this new realm, but as pioneers, they face some harsh challenges, fraught with conceptual and methodological concerns. We thank these authors for advancing the state of this nascent field and guiding the way toward future research. At the same time, we identify some critical issues in an effort to move the discussion forward.The research presented in this special issue shows both commonalities and differences. Four of the papers examine how students' conceptions of knowledge and knowing are related to metacognitive or self-regulatory learning processes. Bromme, Piesch, and Stahl propose that epistemic beliefs are most salient in the anticipation of the learning task (what they call "apprehension structure"), as individuals metacognitively calibrate to task characteristics; this is supported with an overview of several studies from their lab. Muis and Franco suggest that students' epistemic profiles influence self-regulation through Metacognition Learning (2010) 5:113-120

show abstract

Modeling Domain Learning: Profiles From the Field of Special Education.

Cited by 88 publications

References 35 publications

Multidimensional Investigation of Deep and Surface Processing

Multidimensional Investigation of Deep and Surface Processing

Reading for Understanding: How Performance Moderators and Scenarios Impact Assessment Design

Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: musings on an emerging field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About