Melinda S.

Burchard
Peter Swerdzewski
Learning
Effectiveness
of a Strategic
Learning Course
The effectiveness of a postsecondary strategic learning course for improving
metacognitive awareness and regulation was evaluated through systematic
program assessment. The course emphasized students awareness of per-
sonal learning through the study of learning theory and through practical
application of specic learning strategies. Students assessed personal gains
through pretest and posttest assessments of both metacognitive awareness
and regulation. Pretest-to-posttest gains were statistically signicant with
large, meaningful effect sizes for program participants, including students
with disabilities. Evidence supports the effectiveness of the program and, by
extension, the value and importance of learning strategies instruction as a
powerful educational intervention for students with disabilities.
Educators attempt to empower
learners with self-awareness and strategies for areas of need, which
consequently lead to learners increased reliance on strategic approaches
to the process of learning. Learning strategies include procedures for
note-taking, reading textbooks or articles, organizing thoughts prior to
writing, managing time, test-taking and many other skill areas. Learning
strategies are not tricks or shortcuts; instead, strategic learning focuses
on matching specic approaches, processes or strategies to the individu-
als learning needs. Most learning strategies also involve metacognitive
processing, which involves intentionally thinking about ones learning
strengths or needs and actively applying a strategy to regulate some
aspect of ones learning. Educational researchers advocated that post-
secondary learners should actively employ individualized strategies that
meet the learners personal learning preferences, strengths, weaknesses,
and even disabilities (Davidson & Sternberg, 1998; Gamache, 2002;
14 Learning effectiveness
Learning effectiveness 15
Hacker, 1998; Minskoff & Allsopp, 2003). Importantly, postsecondary
students who approached learning with higher metacognitive awareness
or self-regulation showed greater academic performance (Davidson &
Sternberg, 1998; Highley, 1995; Ruban, McCoach, McGuire, & Reis, 2003;
Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Sungar, 2007; White & Kitchen, 1991; Wolt-
ers, 1997). Furthermore, research has consistently provided evidence
for the effectiveness of various learning strategies for postsecondary
learners, especially in increasing self-regulation (Minskoff, Minskoff, &
Allsopp, 2001; Peterson, Lavelle, & Guarino, 2006; Van Blerkom, D.L.,
Van Blerkom, M.L., & Bertsch, 2006).
The value of learning strategies in improving performance outcomes,
such as grades or specic curriculum- based measures, is established by
the previous research. Furthermore, existing research demonstrated the
connection between learning strategies and metacognition. This study
goes one step further to explore the challenges of creating effective
interventions that increase students metacognitive self-awareness and
consequently lead to students successful independent implementation
of learning strategies in their academic careers. Specically, this study
investigates whether a learning strategies course could improve meta-
cognitive regulation beyond gains made through typical maturation,
with special interest in gains made by students with disabilities.
Previous Research
The review of the literature discussed below describes studies that focus
both on the importance of learning strategies and the outcomes of vari-
ous learning strategy interventions employed at the postsecondary level.
Additionally, the literature that informs the current study deals with the
impact that metacognition has on postsecondary learning. Further stud-
ies investigate the effectiveness of specic learning strategies or strategy
programs for postsecondary students with learning disabilities.
Importance of Learning Strategies
Content knowledge requires mastery of facts and reasoning in a specic
eld or topic. The process of learning itself reaches beyond content
knowledge to encompass the way a student learns with ever-increasing
effectiveness. The improvement of learning, not just content knowledge,
is an important outcome of postsecondary education. Various researchers
connected the successful employment of strategic learning to aspects
of metacognitive awareness and/or regulation (Braten & Stomso, 2005;
Carnell, 2007; Dahlin, 1999; Garner, 1990; Hanley, 1995; Sungar, 2007;
Wolters, 1997). For example, a student who was more aware of his or her
learning strengths and weaknesses demonstrated greater readiness to
16 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
employ strategies related to these strengths and weaknesses. Numerous
universities such as Louisiana State, Stanford University, and Muskingum
College have implemented programs or courses to teach learning strate-
gies (Louisiana State, 2007; Muskingum, 2007; Stanford, 2007). Various
data supported implementation of learning strategies to assist in meeting
the complex learning requirements inherent in postsecondary educa-
tion (Ryan & Glenn, 2004; White, 1991). Furthermore, freshmen who
participated in a learning strategies seminar during their rst semester
as opposed to participating in a socialization style seminar or no seminar
at all had higher retention rates into their second semester of college
(Ryan & Glenn). Moreover, in the same study, it was found that learn-
ing strategies training improved performance measures for freshmen
regardless of prior ability. These scholars present a strong body of evi-
dence supportive of learning strategy interventions for postsecondary
learners primarily for performance outcomes. Additionally, this body
of evidence showed that metacognitive awareness and regulation are
connected to learning strategies use.
Outcomes of Implementing Various Learning Strategies Interventions
The successful implementation of learning strategies into ones academic
pursuits is predicated on learning and using specic techniques. Some
of the key components of successful metacognitive training include
modeling, active student participation and self-monitoring (Alsopp,
Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005; Deshler & Shumaker, 1986; Swanson, 1989;
Trainin & Swanson, 2005; Vogel & Adelman, 1992; Zimmerman, 1989).
Furthermore, students who implemented metacognitive processing
demonstrated superior knowledge acquisition and stronger self-efcacy
(Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998).
Previous research implemented a required course for at-risk students
focusing primarily upon regulatory strategies with some coverage of
motivational theories. A study of this course found intercorrelations
among metacognition, student organization and elaboration, but with
limited statistical signicance (Highley, 1995). Garcia and Pintrich (1991)
studied postsecondary learning within one semester and demonstrated
relationships between personal and behavior inuences, such as motiva-
tion and metacognitive characteristics and performance, but there were
no interventions in that particular study. Zimmerman, Bandura and
Martinez-Pons (1992) investigated causal relationships between various
constructs, including self-regulated learning on nal grades. That study
demonstrated a signicant causal link between self-efcacy for self-
regulated learning, efcacy for academic achievement, and academic
attainment. In that study, self-regulatory factors accounted for 26% of
the variance in performance outcomes.
Learning effectiveness 17
Development of Metacognition
Metacognition, the act of monitoring and evaluating ones learning, and
implementing intentional strategies to regulate learning benecially
impacts learning by increasing either effectiveness, efciency or both
(Pintrich, 2002; Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Researchers have differenti-
ated two important aspects of metacognition: the awareness of learning
and regulation of metacognition (Pintrich, 2002; Schraw & Dennison,
1994). The awareness of learning, also termed metacognitive awareness,
includes three components: (a) declarative knowledge: awareness of
strengths, weaknesses and resources; (b) procedural knowledge: know-
ing steps to various strategies; and (c) conditional knowledge: knowing
when and why to use those strategies. Metacognitive regulation is com-
prised of ve components: (a) planning; (b) information management,
involving how one organizes new information; (c) monitoring, the act of
checking for understanding or strategy effectiveness during a learning
event; (d) debugging, xing those learning behaviors which are not
working; and (e) evaluation, checking for understanding or effective-
ness after a learning event; (Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2005; Schraw &
Dennison, 1994; Schraw & Moshman, 1995).
Metacognitive strategies include intentional strategic approaches to
learning such as monitoring ones attention, reading specic styles of
text, taking lecture notes, and thinking critically. Studies show that meta-
cognitive awareness may be an important component in metacognitive
regulation. Researchers have shown strong connections between declara-
tive knowledge (such as knowing specic weaknesses in organizing ones
writing) and conditional knowledge (such as when and why to use a
specic writing strategy) and successful implementation of regulation
strategies (Kuhn, Garcia-Mila, Zohar, & Anderson, 1995; Vermunt, 1998).
One key nding is that learning strategies or metacognitive training
programs are most effective when instructors encourage students to
practice the strategies with college course content and reinforce the
benet of this practicing, in part because sufcient practice tends to-
ward the development of new habits (Kuhn et al., 1995; Van Blerkom
& Van Blerkom, 2004). Most importantly, students do demonstrate
improvements in academic achievement with participation in learning
strategies training (Butler, 1995; Minskoff et al., 2001; Tuckman, 2003).
Thus, research shows metacognitive learning approaches are benecial
to postsecondary learners for performance outcomes such as specic
skills, grades, or retention.
Developing metacognitive awareness may involve student explora-
tion of other contributing factors in learning. A positive relationship
has been demonstrated between self-regulation and college students
18 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
readiness to change. Consequently, we should expect one student who
is already actively seeking a new reading comprehension strategy to
demonstrate greater effectiveness in self-regulated reading than a peer
who is only just beginning to be aware that he needs a new approach to
reading. Thus, students exploration of their own readiness to change is
an important component in programs designed to develop self-regula-
tion (Jakubowski & Dembo, 2004).
Evidence of Strategy Effectiveness for Students with Learning
Disabilities
Importantly, researchers have provided substantial evidence for the
connection between successful strategy use and academic success for
postsecondary students with learning disabilities (McGuire, Hall, & Litt,
1991; Minskoff et al., 2001; Ruban et al., 2003). McGuire et al. established
a hierarchy of transition needs for students with learning disabilities in
which study strategies ranked rst (including time management, orga-
nization and test-taking strategies); specic training in written expres-
sion ranked second in need. Swanson (1989) established principles for
instruction to promote strategy development. Swansons work clearly
connected high quality strategy programs to metacognitive aspects such
as procedural and conditional knowledge and self-regulatory monitoring.
Specically, college students with learning disabilities who exhibited
high strategy use were successful in compensating for their disabilities
(Butler, 1995; Minskoff et al., 2001; Trainin & Swanson, 2005). In a study
by Barga (1996), students with learning disabilities reported that their
colleges did not typically meet their academic support needs, and Barga
thus challenged college instructors to develop skills to teach a variety
of learning strategies and self management techniques for a continuum
of learners while challenging students to become more self-determined
in nding learning supports. Vogel and Adelman (1992) suggested that
the learning strategy support programs developed specically for post-
secondary students with learning disabilities may benet additional
populations of students, such as athletes or students from lower socio-
economic backgrounds. With increasing numbers of students with dis-
abilities pursuing postsecondary education, this evidence is compelling
for the specic value of learning strategies for the academic success of
postsecondary students with disabilities.
Training students in specic learning strategies can positively inu-
ence common postsecondary outcomes including retention, students
grades in specic courses, or students overall GPAs. Metacognitive
regulation is an important indicator of postsecondary student learning
and contributes to student success. Importantly, researchers have found
Learning effectiveness 19
evidence that training in specic strategies has a positive impact on
the development of specic components of metacognitive regulation.
The importance of learning strategies to student success is clear, yet
the mechanism with which students can effectively learn these strate-
gies is not. For example, one signicant gap in the literature is whether
course-based training in several specic learning strategies can lead
to signicant gains in metacognitive regulation. Moreover, it is as yet
unknown if the impact of such training differs between populations of
students with and without disabilities.
Despite the established relationships between metacognition and
various desirable learning outcomes, research demonstrated that ex-
plicit training is necessary to inuence the metacognition of learners
(Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005; Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2005). A
study of postsecondary learning strategies by Allsopp et al. resulted in
the establishment of a learning strategies program for students with
disabilities. Initially, this program offered one-on-one lessons and ac-
countability by a graduate student trained in learning strategies as a free
service to students with learning disabilities or ADHD. In response to
increasing demand, a special educator specializing in learning strategies
was hired as full-time faculty, offering expanded opportunity for an in-
creasing number of students to participate. This postsecondary learning
strategies program then further expanded to offer a strategic learning
course open to any student at the university. Sanford (1966) asserted,
There is nothing quite so practical as good theory and nothing so good
for theory-making as direct involvement with practice (p. ix). Heeding
this perspective, instructors designing this course integrated educational
theory with practical learning strategies. The program upon which the
course had been based emphasized primarily regulation, with limited
attention to personal awareness and no learning theories instruction to
the participants. Thus, integration of learning theory with training in
learning strategies was a new approach. While there is correlational evi-
dence connecting metacognition with learning strategies, and evidence
of effectiveness of strategies courses, there is limited empirical data in
the literature demonstrating that such a course could positively affect
the metacognitive skills of targeted populations, particularly students
with disabilities. Specically, this study seeks to determine if postsec-
ondary students with disabilities will benet from learning strategies
instruction in a course format. If so, we furthermore seek to determine
how the growth in metacognition experienced by students with learning
disabilities compares to the growth experienced by students who are not
learning disabled. This study answers the following questions:
20 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
1. For students who participate in the course, are posttest scores
on the two aspects of metacognition signicantly higher
than students pretest scores? In other words, can students
metacognitive awareness and regulation improve through
instruction?
2. Do students with disabilities gain similarly on the two as-
pects of metacognition due to participation in the course,
compared to students who participated in the course but did
not identify themselves as having disabilities?
3. Do students who complete the strategic learning course score
higher on the regulation aspect of metacognition compared
to students from the general student population?
4. Are students who self-select to take this course different in
metacognitive regulation compared to students from the
general student population?
Method
Students and Setting
Students who participate in this course are from a mid-sized mid-At-
lantic four-year university that offers student-focused services and
strong teaching. Nearly 90% of the 17,393 students at the university are
undergraduates. The average combined reading and math SAT score of
incoming freshmen is 1,140. The four-year graduation rate for under-
graduate students is 67%, and 80% graduate within six years. Males
comprise 38.5% of the student population. The student population is
83.71% White. A total of 78 undergraduates participated in the Strategic
Learning class over the rst four semesters. Each semester, an average
of 20 students complete the course (see Table 1 for details by semester).
Most participants were in their freshman or sophomore year and, given
the traditional nature of the university, were between 18 and 20 years
old (three course participants were non-traditional adult degree seek-
ing students). Sixty-two percent of the course participants were female,
and 44% had documented learning disabilities. This course is credit-
bearing but voluntary for all participants. Course participants tend to
learn about the course through targeted marketing efforts that focus on
freshmen advisors, the universitys athletic student services ofce, the
universitys ofce for students with disabilities, a high demand scholar-
ship program, and through an academic support program for students
on academic probation.
The effectiveness of the course is evaluated for the specic sample of
students with disabilities. For the purpose of this study, a student with
a disability is dened as a student who is formally registered with the
Learning effectiveness 21
institutions Ofce of Disability Services with a qualifying disability.
Forty-four percent of course participants registered with a mild cogni-
tive disability at the Ofce of Disability Services. In order to register
with the Ofce of Disability Services, the student must present current
comprehensive documentation meeting guidelines based upon the
DSM-IV criteria for the applicable disabilities. The disabilities of course
participants were varied; most students in the course reported a qualify-
ing learning disability (i.e., dysgraphia, dyslexia, or reading comprehen-
sion disabilities), Attention Decit Hyperactivity Disorder, depression,
or anxiety. One student with a mild hearing loss and related language
impairments also completed the course.
Procedure
The strategic learning class, a 16-week, three-credit academic course,
covers prominent learning theories; students personal assessment of
their learning styles, strengths and weaknesses; and practical applica-
tion of strategy and theory. Learning theories include academic goal
orientation, goal setting, change theory, multicultural perspectives,
memory and forgetting, multiple intelligences and metacognition.
Students are required to relate the theories to personal experience or
perspective through written reection, class discussion, and projects.
Theory instruction is balanced with practical strategies. For example,
after learning several strategies and principals of mnemonics, students
work in small groups based upon their other courses to invent mnemonic
strategies to meet specic needs, such as reasoning through scenario
test questions. Students are challenged to then try their invented strat-
egies and report back to the class. Additionally, there is evidence that
students learn to use the strategies taught in the course because of an
application-based assignment that requires students to demonstrate
employment of one specic strategy in other coursework outside the
learning strategies class. For example, students may show notes taken
in a psychology course using a note-taking strategy or the use of a plan-
ner that demonstrates the student broke down long-term assignments
into manageable steps.
Strategies include note-taking, task analysis, time management, com-
plex thinking, planning for writing, use of assistive technology for writ-
ing, editing tools and resources, techniques for reading textbooks and
articles, research approaches, memory-improvement skills, test-taking
strategies, and others. Instruction emphasizes strategies that followed
a system of connections with theory or prior experience, explanation,
modeling, guided practice and opportunity for independent practice
(Minskoff & Allsopp, 2003). Assignments stress the application of
22 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
theory as well as specic strategies to personal learning, especially in
coursework for other classes. For example, the rst paper in the course
requires students to reect on results from various learning assessment
tools and examples from academic experiences. The assessment tools
completed by students address learning styles (measured by the Index
of Learning Styles; Felder & Silverman, 1988), academic goal orientation
(measured by the Achievement Goal Questionnaire; Finney, Pieper, &
Barron, 2004), metacognitive awareness and regulation (measured by
the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory; Schraw & Dennison, 1994),
and multiple intelligences (as measured by a multiple intelligences
inventory; Gardner, 1993).
The consistent approach of the course is to require students to inten-
tionally apply strategies to personal learning. For example, one class
assignment requires students to further expand personal awareness
through participation in any two activities from a list of career and
academic exploration activities, ranging from taking a career assess-
ment inventory to participation in a career exploration workshop. In
a creative research project, training for the project includes research,
reading and writing strategies. Grading then reinforces demonstration
of those specic strategies. Points are earned on each test for visible
evidence of memory or test-taking strategies employed during the course
of the test, such as jotting down a mnemonic strategy in the margin of
the test or by circling key words such as except in a test item. The
nal project in the class requires students to create a resource notebook
that includes ve sections: (a) reection on personal learning strengths,
weaknesses and changes over time; (b) career and academic exploration
and the connection between such exploration and specic strategies;
(c) academic goals written in measurable terms with specic strategies
delineated to meet them; (d) a collection of specic strategies that were
found personally useful in current or future courses; and (e) resources
from various campus, community or on-line learning supports.
While a bulk of the course is consistent from semester to semester, the
instructor ensures exibility to address specic student areas of need.
For example, when a majority of students identify planning as a need,
additional emphasis is given to explicit training in time management
and organizational strategies. When more students nd monitoring
strategies to be a need, the instructor gives more emphasis to explicit
training and modeling of monitoring strategies in every lesson. Early in
the course, students learn to write measurable goals addressing identi-
ed areas of weakness, some of which are then addressed during the
current semester. Reection on achievement of those goals is included
in the nal project.
Learning effectiveness 23
Using four self-report tools, each student in the strategic learning
course assessed personal learning styles, learning preferences, and
learning strengths and weaknesses. The learning assessments in the
course set the stage for early evaluation of personal learning and per-
sonal application of learning theories. The Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (MAI; Schraw & Dennison, 1994) was administered at both
the beginning and end of the semester. Students used this specic tool
to identify both strengths and target areas for improvement over the
course of the semester with regard to metacognitive skills (a major
component to the course curriculum). In the thirteenth week of the
course, students reassessed their awareness and regulation of learning
by again completing the MAI and then reecting on changes from the
beginning of the semester to the end of the semester.
For the purposes of this study, the independent variables analyzed
include course participation and disability status. The dependent vari-
ables for the rst three research questions are scores on an assessment of
metacognitive awareness and regulation. A simple t-test was conducted
to test the fourth research question and compare for differences between
the students who took the course and those who did not.
Instrumentation
The assessment tool used to assess metacognitive awareness and regu-
lation was the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, the MAI. This tool
is a 52-item self-report measure designed to assess metacognition in
adults (including the collegiate population) using two subscales: (1)
Knowledge of Cognition (referred to as the Awareness subscale; 17
items) and (2) Regulation of Cognition (referred to as the Regulation
subscale; 35 items). Students rate each item on a ve-point Likert-type
scale from always false to always true. Schraw and Dennison (1994)
found acceptable psychometric properties for the instrument: reliability
(Cronbachs coefcient alpha) was consistently greater than .90 and
evidence supported a two-factor scoring solution. For the purpose of
this study, the instrument subscales were analyzed separately.
Results
Research Question 1: For students who participate in the course,
are posttest scores on the awareness and regulation aspects of
metacognition signicantly higher than students pretest scores?
The gains of each specic semester cohort were compared. A statistical
test to compare the slopes from pretest to posttest for the four semesters
found that there were no statistically signicant differences among the
slopes of the four semesters on either Awareness (F(3,74) = 2.34, p
24 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
=.080,
p
2
=.09) or Regulation (F(3,74) = 1.63, p =.189,
p
2
=.06). The
lack of a statistically signicant difference across the four semesters in
which the class was offered indicates that combining the data across all
four semesters is permissible.
Pretest and posttest scores on the Awareness subscale of the MAI were
subsequently examined to see if students scores signicantly increased
during the Strategic Learning course. A repeated-measures ANOVA was
used to test the null hypothesis that students increase from pretest to
posttest was signicantly different than zero. There was both a statisti-
cally signicant increase from pretest to posttest (F(1, 77) = 76.33, p <
.001) and a practically signicant increase from pretest to posttest (
2
= .50), indicating that students metacognitive awareness scores did
increase from pretest to posttest (see Figure 1 and Table 1).
The Regulation subscale of the MAI was next examined to determine if
students increased signicantly in their scores from pretest to posttest.
A repeated-measures ANOVA was again used to test the null hypoth-
esis that students increase from pretest to posttest was signicantly
different than zero. There was both a statistically signicant increase
from pretest to posttest (F(1, 77) = 35.16, p < .001) and a practically
signicant increase from pretest to posttest (
2
= .31), indicating that
students metacognitive regulation scores did increase from pretest to
posttest (see Figure 2 and Table 1).
Research Question 2: Do students with disabilities gain similarly
on the awareness and regulation aspects of metacognition due to
participation in the course compared to students who participated in
the course but did not identify themselves as having disabilities?
MAI responses were analyzed using a repeated measures mixed ANOVA
to test the null hypothesis that postsecondary students with disabilities
increased their scores on each of the subscales of the instrument from
pretest to posttest, similar to students without cognitive disabilities. The
within-subjects effect was the students pretest/posttest scores and the
between-subjects effect was whether or not a student had a cognitive
disability.
Students pretest and posttest scores on the MAIs Awareness sub-
scale were addressed rst. An interaction between the status of having
a cognitive disability and students pretest/posttest Awareness scores
was not found (F(1, 76) = .01, p = .937,
2
= .00). This nding indicates
that disability status did not explain a signicant amount of variance in
pretest/posttest gains on the Awareness subscale. In other words, stu-
dents with disabilities gained similarly to students without disabilities
on the Metacognitive Awareness subscale of the MAI. Disaggregating
Learning effectiveness 25
Figure 1 Awareness Pretest to Posttest Gains Made by the Last Four
Cohorts
Awareness Pretest to Posttest Gains Made by the Last Four Cohorts
17
27
37
47
57
67
77
Aw areness Pretest Aw areness Posttest
Average Awareness Subscale Score
(Scores can range from 17 to 85)
All Cohorts
Figure 2 Regulation Pretest to Posttest Gains Made by the Last Four
Cohorts
Regulation Pretest to Postest Gains Made by the Last Four Cohorts
35
55
75
95
115
135
155
175
Regulation Pretest Regulation Posttest
Average Regulation Subscale Score
(Scores can range from 35 to 175)
All Cohorts
26 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
Table 1 Pretest and Posttest Scores on Both MAI Subscales
a
Metacognitive Awareness
b
Metacognitive Regulation
c
Cohort N Pretest
Score
Posttest
Score Gain
Pretest
Score
Posttest
Score Gain
Fall
05
17 61.82
(8.68)
(47 76)
70.24
(6.69)
(53 79)
8.41
(7.91)
(-3 29)
127.12
(17.04)
(89 158)
133.94
(16.46)
(99 156)
6.82
(14.72)
(-11 40)
Spring
06
18 58.94
(8.03)
(43 74)
70.22
(7.53)
(52 81)
11.28
(8.34)
(-5 26)
117.44
(17.34)
(77 146)
134.78
(13.87)
(110 160)
17.33
(17.38)
(-13 53)
Fall
06
27 60.85
(9.89)
(44 79)
68.11
(7.40)
(56 81)
7.26
(6.91)
(-9 23)
124.67
(17.51)
(89 164)
133.15
(16.50)
(101 161)
8.48
(16.28)
(-22 49)
Spring
07
16 58.06
(8.58)
(42 70)
62.44
(7.60)
(48 72)
4.38
(8.16)
(-9 27)
113.75
(19.89)
(71 146)
124.13
(17.32)
(80 146)
10.38
(12.51)
(-6 43)
All
Cohorts
78 60.05
(8.90)
(42 79)
67.90
(7.76)
(48 81)
7.85
(7.93)
(-9 29)
121.29
(18.28)
(71 164)
131.85
(16.28)
(80 161)
10.55
(15.72)
(-22 53)
Not
Disabled
44 59.70
(8.79)
(42 79)
67.61
(7.99)
(48 81)
7.91
(7.71)
(-9 27)
119.64
(20.12)
(71 164)
130.68
(17.18)
(80 161)
11.05
(16.58)
(-22 53)
Disabled 34 60.50
(9.17)
(43 77)
68.26
(7.56)
(52 80)
7.76
(8.33)
(-9 29)
123.44
(15.61)
(89 158)
133.35
(15.16)
(103 156)
9.91
(14.74)
(-13 45)
a
Standard deviations are listed below score in parentheses; observed score
ranges are listed below standard deviations in parentheses
b
Possible range of Metacognitive Awareness Scores from 17 to 85
c
Possible range of Metacognitive Regulation Scores from 35 to 175
Learning effectiveness 27
students by whether or not they have a disability does not provide
explanatory utility in explaining pretest/posttest scores, thus a more
parsimonious model in which Awareness pretest and posttest scores
are evaluated without disability status as a between-subjects predictor is
more appropriate. In the absence of a statistically signicant difference
between students with and without disabilities, the results demonstrate
that students with and without disabilities made similar gains on Meta-
cognitive Awareness.
Similar results were found for the model in which students scores
on the MAI Regulation subscale were examined by cognitive disability
status. As with the Awareness subscale, an interaction between whether
or not a student had a cognitive disability and students pretest/posttest
Regulation scores was not found (F(1, 76) = .10, p = .754,
2
= .00). This
indicates that disability status did not explain a signicant amount of
variance in pretest/posttest gains on the Regulation subscale. In other
words, students in the course with disabilities gained similarly to stu-
dents without disabilities in the course on the Metacognitive Regulation
subscale of the MAI. Disaggregating students by disability status did
not provide additional predictive utility in explaining pretest/posttest
scores; thus, a more parsimonious model in which Regulation pretest
and posttest scores are evaluated without disability status as a between-
subjects predictor would be more appropriate. This study demonstrates
that students disability status did not interact with gains made in Meta-
cognitive Regulation.
Research Question 3: Do students who complete the strategic learning
course score higher on the regulation aspects of metacognition
compared to students from the general student population?
A purpose of the strategic learning course is to increase course partici-
pants knowledge and skills related to adaptive metacognitive behavior.
One would thus hypothesize that students who complete the strategic
learning course would score higher on the MAI than students who do not
take the course. For the purpose of this research question, researchers
examined only scores for the Regulation subscale, as these items address
positive behaviors that one would observe in a general population of
students who have not completed a study skills or learning strategies-
type course. In other words, comparing Awareness scores of students
who participated in the course to students who did not participate in
the course is not appropriate because the awareness dimension of
metacognition includes specic knowledge not commonly encountered
by members of the general student population. Students were sampled
from the university population (N = 1463) to complete the Regulation
28 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
subscale under standardized, proctored conditions at two points in time:
once when the students were freshmen and again 18 months later when
the students were sophomores. Scores from the general student popula-
tion were not obtained during the same time frame as scores from the
strategic learning course participants (the elapse time between pretest
and posttest for the learning course participants was approximately 13
weeks); accordingly, inferences should be made with caution.
Posttest scores on the Regulation subscale for students who partici-
pated in the strategic learning course (N = 78) were compared to scores
for students from the general population who completed the same sub-
scale (N = 1463) using a repeated measures mixed ANOVA (see Figure 3
and Table 2). Due to the unequal sample sizes, Type III Sums of Squares
were employed and F-max was evaluated at a permissible level (i.e., an
F-max value less than 3.0 is permissible for a standard mixed ANOVA)
for the variances of all applicable comparisons, providing evidence that
no adjustments were necessary to conduct the analysis. Students who
were in the strategic learning class experienced larger gains over the
13-week period compared to students in the general population over an
18-month period (i.e., an interaction was present) F(1,1539) = 28.74, p
< .001,
2
= .02). In other words, strategic learning course participants
gained on the Regulation subscale at a greater rate than would be ex-
pected due to simple maturation over the rst two years of college (see
Figure 3 and Table 2), thereby lending evidence to the worth of the
strategic learning course.
It is important to stress that the interval between pretest and posttest
measures taken for course participants was one semester only, while the
interval between pretest and posttest measures for the general student
population was just over three semesters. The results of this specic
question are important in demonstrating that students who participate
in a course with a metacognitive approach to teaching learning strate-
gies do show gains in metacognitive regulation which are signicantly
greater than peers who do not participate in such a course. The difference
in intervals between pretesting and posttesting raises additional ques-
tions for future study, such as the longitudinal benets of metacognitive
regulation after course participation.
Research Question 4: Are students who self-select to take this course
different in metacognitive regulation compared to students from the
general student population?
It is important to note that the results from an additional analysis reveal
that the average pretest score for students who participated in the stra-
tegic learning course was statistically and practically signicantly lower
Learning effectiveness 29
Figure 3 Regulation Pretest to Posttest Gains Made by the Last Four
Cohorts
Regulation Pretest to Posttest Gains Made by the
Last Four Cohorts
35
55
75
95
115
135
155
175
Regulation Pretest Regulation Posttest
Average Regulation Subscale Score
(Scores can range from 35 to 175)
Strategic Learning
Participants
General Student
Population
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Regulation Subscale: Participants
versus General Student Population
Metacognitive Regulation
Cohort N Pretest
Score
Pretest
SD
Pretest CI Posttest
Score
Posttest
SD
Posttest CI
Learning Strategies
Participants
78 121.29 18.28 117.23 to
125.35
131.85 16.28 128.24 to
135.46
General Student
Population*
1463 126.14 15.221 125.36 to
126.92
127.57 17.327 126.68 to
128.461
* Time between the pretest and posttest for the general student population is 18
months.
30 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
than the score on the Regulation subscale obtained from the general
population (t(809) = 2.418, p = .016, d = .288; see Figure 3 and Table
2). In other words, students who participated in the strategic learning
course started with Regulation scores signicantly lower (.288 pooled
standard deviations lower) than the general student population, and
completed the course with Regulation scores signicantly higher than
those of the general student population. Importantly, the much lower
starting rate at which course participants used strategies to regulate
learning gives additional evidence that the strategic learning course
provides students with a powerful and benecial learning experience.
Given the lower starting scores of their students on metacognitive regu-
lation, instructors might be satised to help students achieve regulation
at levels similar to their peers, yet these course participants reached
post course levels of regulation signicantly higher than peers who did
not take the course.
Implications
Results of this study indicate that students enrolled in a postsecondary
course combining learning theory with practical application of learning
strategies show signicant gains in both metacognitive awareness and
regulation. Students who took the course made regulation gains signi-
cantly greater than the general student population. Most signicantly,
students with disabilities demonstrated metacognitive gains in both
awareness and regulation similar to gains made by students without
disabilities. In this case, an intervention had positive results for both
students with and without disabilities, demonstrating a good model for
postsecondary intervention for students in at-risk groups regardless of
disability status. Whereas many skills taught at universities are specic
to various elds, students who increase their metacognitive skills gain a
critical foundational skill set not often taught in postsecondary education.
Students with greater metacognitive skills are potentially more adept at
higher-level processing, implying greater academic success.
While many universities have implemented programs or courses to
promote use of learning strategies, none has thus far reported a course
integrating theory with practical strategies. For students who experi-
ence academic challenges, we recommend course-based support with
the integration of theory and practical learning strategies within the
context of the course. Future research should investigate effectiveness
of a similar instructional approach with different populations or in
a different context. Future research should also explore longitudinal
gains in metacognition and impact on grades for students who take
such courses compared to students who do not. Studies that vary the
Learning effectiveness 31
theory and strategy content related to specic areas of gain (e.g., vary-
ing emphasis on specic theories or strategies such as goal setting or
information management across different semesters) may gain valuable
insight into components of this approach which are most effective in
improving student learning. Indeed, such research could be extended to
explore the structure of knowledge for all postsecondary learners who
experience academic challenges.
References
Allsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individualized course-specic strategy
instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned
from a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20,
103-118.
Barga, N. K. (1996). Students with learning disabilities in education: Managing a disability.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 413-421.
Braten, I., & Stomso, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, implicit
theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian postsecondary
students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 539-565.
Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2(3), 170-190.
Carnell, E. (2007). Conceptions of effective teaching in higher education: Extending the
boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 25-40.
Dahlin, B. (1999). Ways of coming to understand: Metacognitive awareness among rst-year
university students. Scandanavian Journal of Educational Research 43,(2), 191-208.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). How metacognition helps problem solving. In
D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory
and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Deshler, D. D., & Shumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative
for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 583-590.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering
education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the psychometric properties
of the achievement goal questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 365-382.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of
goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes
and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 218-233.
Gamache, P. (2002). University students as creators of personal knowledge: An alternative
epistemological view. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 277-294.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1991). Student motivation and self-regulated learning: A
LISREL model. Paper presented a the American Educational Research Association
Convention, Chicago, IL.
32 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a
theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517-529.
Hacker, D. J., (1998). Denitions and empirical foundations. In J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hanley, G. L. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and
problem solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68-72.
Highley, D. C. (1995). The effects of a learning to learn course on at risk students motiva-
tion, self-regulated learning processes and academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Jakubowski, T. G. & Dembo, M. G. (2004). The relationship of self-efcacy, identity
style, and stage of change with academic self-regulation. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 35, 7-24.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Anderson, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge ac-
quisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), 1-128.
Louisiana State University. (2006). Center for Academic Success. Retrieved November 20,
2006, from: http://appl003.lsu.edu/slas/cas.nsf/index.
McGuire, J. M., Hall, D., & Litt, V. (1991). A eld-based study of the direct service needs
of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Student Development,
32(2), 101-108.
Minskoff, E. H., & Allsopp, D. (2003). Academic Success Strategies for Adolescents with Learn-
ing Disabilities & ADHD. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.
Minskoff, E. H., Minskoff, J. G., & Allsopp, D. (2001). A systematic model for curriculum-
based assessment and intervention for postsecondary students with mild disabilities
(Final report). Unpublished manuscript, James Madison University.
Muskingum College. (2007). Center for Advancement and Learning.. Retrieved October 26,
2007, from: http://www.muskingum.edu/%7Ecal/.
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and
student performance in the postsecondary classroom. Journal of Experimental Educa-
tion, 74(1), 7-28.
Peterson, R., Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). The relationship between college
students executive functioning and study strategies. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 36, 59-67.
Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J. M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential im-
pact of academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among university
students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(33),
268-284.
Ryan, M. P., & Glenn, P. A. (2004). What do rst year students need most: Learning strat-
egies instruction or academic socialization? Journal of College Reading and Learning,
34, 4-28.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self & society: Social change and individual development. New York:
Atherton Press.
Learning effectiveness 33
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review,
7(4), 351-371.
Stanford University. (2007). Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved October 26, 2007
from: http://ctl.stanford.edu/.
Sungar, S. (2007). Contribution of motivational beliefs and metacognition to students
performance under consequential and nonconsequential test conditions. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 13(2), 127-142.
Swanson, H. L. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for
effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 3-14.
Trainin, G., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 28, 261-272.
Tuckman, B. W. (2003). The effect of learning and motivation strategies training on college
students achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 430-437.
Van Blerkom, D. L., Van Blerkom, M. L., & Bertsch, S. (2006). Study strategies and genera-
tive learning: What works? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37, 7-18.
Van Blerkom, M. L., & Van Blerkom, D. L. (2004). Self-monitoring strategies used by de-
velopmental and non-developmental college students. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 34, 45-60.
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 149-171.
Vogel, S. A., & Adelman, P. B. (1992). The success of college students with learning dis-
abilities: Factors related to educational attainment. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
25(7), 430-441.
White, W. F., & Kitchen, S. (1991). Teaching metacognitive awareness to entering college
students with developmental lag. College Student Journal, 25(4), 521-523.
Wolters, C. A. (1997). Issues in self-regulated learning: Metacognition, conditional knowl-
edge and the regulation of motivation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(11-A),
4651. (UMI No. 1997-95009-078)
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efcacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.
Melinda Burchard holds an M.Ed. in Special Education from James Madison
University where she is an instructor in Exceptional Education. She is pursuing a
Ph.D. in Special Education and Teacher Education from George Mason University.
Her research interests include secondary and postsecondary learning strategies as
well as professional development for Response to Intervention practices. Previous
34 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (1), Fall 2009
experience includes serving as a postsecondary Learning Strategies Coordinator, a high
school special educator, and a parent trainer for parents of children with disabilities.
Peter Swerdzewski, Ph.D., is an Assistant Research Scientist at the College Board,
where he works with educational research initiatives designed to connect students
to college success and opportunity. Prior to working at the College Board, he served
as an intern at the Center for Assessment and Research Studies at James Madison
University. His research interests include college readiness, admissions, non-cognitive
assessment, and test-taking motivation.