The Psychology of Academic Achievement

The Psychology
of Academic Achievement
Philip H. Winne and John C. Nesbit
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010.61:653-678. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada;

email: [email protected], [email protected]
by Simon Fraser University on 07/31/14. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010. 61:653–78 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on school learning, educational psychology, motivation, metacognition,
October 19, 2009
experimental methodology, self-regulated learning
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at
psych.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: Educational psychology has generated a prolific array of findings about
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348
factors that influence and correlate with academic achievement. We re-
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. view select findings from this voluminous literature and identify two do-
All rights reserved
mains of psychology: heuristics that describe generic relations between
0066-4308/10/0110-0653$20.00 instructional designs and learning, which we call the psychology of “the
way things are,” and findings about metacognition and self-regulated
learning that demonstrate learners selectively apply and change their
use of those heuristics, which we call the psychology of “the way learn-
ers make things.” Distinguishing these domains highlights a need to
marry two approaches to research methodology: the classical approach,
which we describe as snapshot, bookend, between-group experimen-
tation; and a microgenetic approach that traces proximal cause-effect
bonds over time to validate theoretical accounts of how learning gen-
erates achievements. We argue for fusing these methods to advance a
validated psychology of academic achievement.
653
in principle, are universal among learners and
Contents across subject areas and are not likely under
learners’ control. One example is that cognition
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
can simultaneously manage only a limited num-
COGNITIVE FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
ber of tasks or chunks of information. Another is
The Example of Cognitive Load . . . . 655
that learners express biases that can be shaped
METACOGNITIVE FACTORS. . . . . . 657
by information in their environment. This is
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS. . . . . . . . 659
the framing effect. A third is that information
Achievement Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
studied and then immediately restudied will be
Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
recalled less completely and less accurately than
Epistemic Beliefs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
if restudying is delayed.
CONTEXT FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
The second category concerns a psychology
Peer-Supported Learning . . . . . . . . . . 661
of “the way learners make things.” In this cat-
Classrooms and Class Size . . . . . . . . . . 663
egory we consider learners as agents. Agents
Homework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664
choose among tasks and among psychological
Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
tools for working on tasks. An example is decid-
PERSISTENT DEBATES . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
ing whether to prepare for an exam by massed

Learning and Cognitive Styles . . . . . . 666
or spaced review. Another example is deciding
Discovery Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
whether and how long to try retrieving infor-
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
mation when it can’t be found but there is a
IN MODELING A
feeling of knowing it. If learners have knowl-
PSYCHOLOGY OF
edge of several mnemonic techniques for re-
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT . . . 669
calling information, they can choose among
Paradigmatic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669
those mnemonics. If a first choice fails but
A Revised Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
strengthens the feeling of knowing, learners can
SHAPES FOR FUTURE
metacognitively monitor what they did to make
RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
an informed choice about the next mnemonic
technique to try. They have the option to in-
terpret success and failure as due to effort or
INTRODUCTION ability. When these choices are made and acted
“Extensive” significantly understates the scope on, new information is created and feeds for-
of research relevant to a psychology of academic ward. In this way, learners shape their learning
achievement. Not having examined all relevant environment.
books, chapters, proceedings, and articles—a Is it important to distinguish between psy-
task we estimate might require three decades chologies of the way things are and the way
of full-time work—we nonetheless posit it is learners make things? In his recent review of
possible to develop a unified account of why, research on memory, Roediger (2008, p. 247)
how, and under what conditions learners suc- wrote: “The aim of this review has been to re-
ceed or fail in school. That account could lead to mind us of the quest for laws and the difficulty
powerful theories about improving educational in achieving them. . . . The most fundamental
practices. Advancing toward such a model is our principle of learning and memory, perhaps its
aim here although, necessarily, much has been only sort of general law, is that in making any
omitted from our review. Like all models, our generalization about memory one must add that
model will have limitations. ‘it depends.’” We suggest Roediger’s lament
The model we sketch acknowledges two cat- may derive from failing to incorporate our dis-
egories of psychological phenomena. The first tinction. While one significant source of vari-
concerns a psychology of “the way things are.” ance in the psychology of academic achieve-
By this we mean psychological phenomena that, ment is due to the way things are, a second
654 Winne · Nesbit

significant source of variance originates in the Baddeley & Hitch 1974) that emphasized the
psychology of the way learners make things. We limited capacity of working memory as a fun-
argue that a psychology of academic achieve- damental resource bottleneck in cognition.
ment must account for how each psychology Vis-à-vis instruction, cognitive load is the total
separately and jointly affects achievement. processing required by a learning activity. It has
Our account of the psychology of academic three components. First, intrinsic load is due to
achievement also borrows a view presented by the inherent difficulty of an instructional task.
Borsboom et al. (2003). In brief, they argue It is indexed by the number of active interact-
and we agree that both kinds of psychology ing schemas needed to perform the task. Intrin-
have been hampered, even misled, by failing to sic load cannot be directly reduced by manip-
address proximal psychological processes. We ulating instructional factors. However, as the
consider questions about psychological pro- learner forms schemas and gains proficiency,
cesses that are shaped and constrained by how intrinsic load decreases. Second, germane load
things are, and about processes that provide arises from the cognitive processing that forms
tools with which learners make things. In our those schemas and boosts proficiency. Third,
account, we portray academic achievement as extrinsic cognitive load is any unnecessary pro-
the result of self-regulated learning and argue cessing. This load can be eliminated by manip-
that improving research entails rethinking con- ulating instructional factors.
structs and the paradigm that guides experi- The three forms of cognitive load are addi-
mental research. tive; their sum cannot exceed working memory’s
limited capacity (Paas et al. 2003a). Intrinsic
processing receives priority access to working
COGNITIVE FACTORS memory. Remaining capacity is shared between
Since the publication of Thorndike’s (1903) germane and extrinsic processing. When total
classic book Educational Psychology, the field has load is less than available capacity, an instruc-
generated thousands of studies. Most investi- tional designer, teacher, or learner can deliber-
gated how environmental factors can be de- ately increase germane load to increase learning
signed and how conditions within learners can efficiency. Changing instructional factors may
be arranged to promote learning facts, princi- reduce extrinsic load. If working memory ca-
ples, skills, and schemas. Recently, a consortium pacity is fully loaded, this can free resources
of approximately 35 eminent researchers (see for germane processing and ultimately produce
http://psyc.memphis.edu/learning/index. more efficient learning. Total cognitive load has
shtml) summarized from this voluminous been measured by real-time recordings of per-
library 25 empirically grounded heuristics for formance and psychophysiological indices. It is
instructional designs (see Table 1). most commonly gauged by self-report ratings
Intending no slight to the range of work con- collected after the task (Paas et al. 2003b).
tributing to each heuristic, we choose cognitive Cognitive load is now liberally cited as an
load theory to epitomize the category of a psy- explanatory construct in research ranging over
chology describing “the way things are.” chemistry problem solving (Ngu et al. 2009),
moral reasoning (Murphy et al. 2009), driver
performance (Reyes & Lee 2008), and even
The Example of Cognitive Load motherhood (Purhonen et al. 2008). When
The construct of cognitive load has proven a cited by researchers outside the learning sci-
powerful explanatory device for spanning the ences, the tripartite nature of cognitive load is
oft-cited gap between a science of learning typically disregarded.
and the arts of teaching and instructional de- Reducing extraneous cognitive load links to
sign. Sweller (1988) developed cognitive load several heuristics in Table 1. It is the primary
theory from models of working memory (e.g., theoretical grounding for improving learning
www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 655

Table 1 Twenty-five heuristics for promoting learninga
Contiguity effects Ideas that need to be associated should be presented contiguously in space and time.
Perceptual-motor grounding Concepts benefit from being grounded in perceptual motor experiences, particularly at early
stages of learning.
Dual code and multimedia effects Materials presented in verbal, visual, and multimedia form richer representations than a single
medium.
Testing effect Testing enhances learning, particularly when the tests are aligned with important content.
Spacing effect Spaced schedules of studying and testing produce better long-term retention than a single
study session or test.
Exam expectations Students benefit more from repeated testing when they expect a final exam.
Generation effect Learning is enhanced when learners produce answers compared to having them recognize
answers.
Organization effects Outlining, integrating, and synthesizing information produces better learning than rereading
materials or other more passive strategies.
Coherence effect Materials and multimedia should explicitly link related ideas and minimize distracting
irrelevant material.
Stories and example cases Stories and example cases tend to be remembered better than didactic facts and abstract
principles.
Multiple examples An understanding of an abstract concept improves with multiple and varied examples.
Feedback effects Students benefit from feedback on their performance in a learning task, but the timing of the
feedback depends on the task.
Negative suggestion effects Learning wrong information can be reduced when feedback is immediate.
Desirable difficulties Challenges make learning and retrieval effortful and thereby have positive effects on long-term
retention.
Manageable cognitive load The information presented to the learner should not overload working memory.
Segmentation principle A complex lesson should be broken down into manageable subparts.
Explanation effects Students benefit more from constructing deep coherent explanations (mental models) of the
material than memorizing shallow isolated facts.
Deep questions Students benefit more from asking and answering deep questions that elicit explanations (e.g.,
why, why not, how, what-if ) than shallow questions (e.g., who, what, when, where).
Cognitive disequilibrium Deep reasoning and learning is stimulated by problems that create cognitive disequilibrium,
such as obstacles to goals, contradictions, conflict, and anomalies.
Cognitive flexibility Cognitive flexibility improves with multiple viewpoints that link facts, skills, procedures, and
deep conceptual principles.
Goldilocks principle Assignments should not be too hard or too easy, but at the right level of difficulty for the
student’s level of skill or prior knowledge.
Imperfect metacognition Students rarely have an accurate knowledge of their cognition, so their ability to calibrate their
comprehension, learning, and memory should not be trusted.
Discovery learning Most students have trouble discovering important principles on their own, without careful
guidance, scaffolding, or materials with well-crafted affordances.
Self-regulated learning Most students need training in how to self-regulate their learning and other cognitive
processes.
Anchored learning Learning is deeper and students are more motivated when the materials and skills are anchored
in real-world problems that matter to the learner.
a
Reproduced from http://psyc.memphis.edu/learning/whatweknow/index.shtml. An elaborated description of each principle plus citations identifying
empirical support is available as 25 Learning Principles to Guide Pedagogy and the Design of Learning Environments. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2009 from http://psyc.
memphis.edu/learning/whatweknow/25principles.doc.
656 Winne · Nesbit

by eliminating unnecessary information (co- and how large they are—the learner exercises
herence), cueing learners’ attention (signaling), control. The learner may choose to stay the
colocating items to be mentally integrated (spa- prior course at a task’s midpoint, adapt slightly
tial contiguity), and synchronizing events to or significantly, or exit the task to pursue
be mentally integrated (temporal contiguity) something else. Together, these steps set the
(Mayer 2005). stage for self-regulated learning, a potentially
Laboratory tasks designed to elevate cogni- ubiquitous activity (Winne 1995).
tive load are reported by learners to feel more Learners are considered agents. This means
difficult (Paas et al. 2003b). From this, we as- they choose whether and how to engage in
sume the state of working memory overload tasks. But learners are not omnipotent. Nor are
is consciously experienced. Thus, it is within they insulated from their cerebral and the ex-
the purview of metacognition. Students can ternal worlds. Agency is reciprocally governed:
avoid overload by segmenting complex tasks for As learners change their local environment, the
sequential work or using external mnemonics environment’s web of causal factors modulates
such as notes or diagrams. The cost of adopting affordances available to them (Martin 2004).
learning tactics is initially experienced as added For example, having monitored a problem’s
difficulty. But this investment can pay off in the statement and classified it as solvable, inher-
long run. ent spreading activation in memory may render
information that the problem is difficult. This
may arouse anxiety. Seeking information from
METACOGNITIVE FACTORS a peer may return a reply that warrants a pos-
Flavell (1971) is credited with motivating psy- itive attribution to effort. Or, it may generate
chologists to research the “intelligent moni- a negative view that success can’t be achieved
toring and knowledge of storage and retrieval without help from others. Some information
operations—a kind of metamemory, perhaps” the environment provides (e.g., by spreading
(p. 277). He succeeded wildly. Since then, the activation) is not controllable, whereas other
broader topic of metacognition—cognition fo- information (e.g., the affect associated with a
cused on the nature of one’s thoughts and one’s peer’s assessment) can be at least partially the
mental actions, and exercising control over learner’s choice.
one’s cognitions—has generated a body of work Given this account, four metacognitive
that merits its own Handbook of Metacognition in achievements can be identified: (a) alertness to
Education (Hacker et al. 2009). occasions to monitor, (b) having and choos-
Metacognition is basically a two-step event ing useful standards for monitoring, (c) accu-
with critical features. First, learners monitor racy in interpreting the profile generated by
features of a situation. They may monitor their monitoring, and (d ) having and choosing use-
knowledge, whether a peer or resource can pro- ful tactics or strategies. After setting the stage to
vide information, and possible consequences reach subject matter achievements by develop-
if they make a particular move in solving a ing these metacognitive skills, two further steps
problem. The metacognitive account of the are required: (e) being motivated to act and ( f )
situation is determined by what the learner modifying the environment or locating oneself
perceives, which may differ from its actual qual- in an environment that affords the chosen ac-
ities. Monitoring compares those perceived tion (Winne & Nesbit 2009).
features to standards set by the learner. Often, Alertness to occasions appropriate to
these are linked to but not necessarily identical metacognitive monitoring has not been much
to standards indicated by a teacher, parent, or researched beyond studies of readers’ capabili-
peer. Second, based on the profile of differences ties to detect superficial (e.g., spelling) or mean-
between the learner’s perception of the situa- ingful errors in texts. In this limited domain,
tion and standards—which differences there are detecting errors is proportional to measures of

prior achievement and inversely proportional to tactic. Early studies investigated very specific
load on working memory (Oakhill et al. 2005, learning tactics, such as whether young children
Walczyk & Raska 1992). The former suggests could verbally mediate how they learned asso-
that standards used in monitoring derive from ciations when rules governing associative pairs
prior knowledge, similar to what learners use changed (Kendler et al. 1972). At the other end
to construct a situation model for new infor- of this continuum, Dansereau and colleagues
mation (Kintsch 1988). The latter reflects that (see Dansereau 1985) trained undergraduates
working memory’s resources play a ubiquitous in a typology of strategies summarized by the
role in the economy of information processing. acronym MURDER: set mood, understand
Learners may struggle to assimilate use- requirements of a task, recall key features of
ful standards and apply them in monitoring. task requirements, detail (elaborating) main
Beyond simplistic misperceptions about what ideas studied, expand information into orga-
counts when assignments are graded, learners nized forms (e.g., an outline), and review. In a
may focus on information at the wrong grain semester-long course, students showed statisti-
size. They may judge work at a global level cally detectable but modest benefits when using
when more-specific targets or items should be MURDER (Dansereau et al. 1979). Other
the standard (Dunlosky et al. 2005). research investigated various methods for
Research on learners’ accuracy of metacog- engaging learners with information and pro-
nitive monitoring has blossomed under the viding opportunities to monitor (see Thomas
rubric of judgments of learning. It is rooted in & McDaniel 2007), including deciding when
the concept of feeling of knowing (Hart 1965), to stop initial study and when to restudy (see
a belief that information is in memory although Rohrer & Pashler 2007), self-questioning
it cannot be retrieved. There are four main (Davey & McBride 1986), and summarizing
findings. First, learners are poor at monitoring information in keyword (Thiede et al. 2003) or
learning and have a bias toward overconfidence prose form (Thiede & Anderson 2003).
(Maki 1998). Second, engaging with informa- Haller et al. (1988) meta-analyzed 20 stud-
tion in meaningful ways, such as generating a ies on the effects of metacognitive instruction
summary of a large amount of information, can on reading comprehension. The average ef-
improve accuracy (see Thomas & McDaniel fect size was 0.72. Hattie and colleagues (1996)
2007). Third, accuracy improves by delaying meta-analyzed 51 newer studies in reading and
monitoring so that learners experience recall (or other subject areas. The average effect sizes
lack of it) rather than just scan residual informa- due to training in cognitive or metacognitive
tion in working memory (Koriat 1993, Nelson skills were 0.57 on performance, 0.16 on study
& Dunlosky 1991, Thiede et al. 2005). Fourth, skills expertise, and 0.48 on positive affect.
after experiencing difficulty in recall, judgments Because comparison groups typically represent
shift from being overconfident to the oppo- “business as usual” conditions, two corollaries
site, dubbed the “underconfidence with practice are warranted: Learners don’t naturally learn
effect” (Koriat et al. 2002). metacognitive skills to an optimum level, and
Relatively much more research is avail- schooling does not sufficiently remedy this dis-
able about tools learners have for exercising advantage. Findings show training has immedi-
metacognitive control. These tools, commonly ate benefits, but they leave unanswered a critical
termed metacognitive skills or learning strate- question: Do positive effects of training persist
gies, vary widely and are researched using two and transfer?
common experimental formats. The first trains Dignath et al. (2008) meta-analyzed re-
learners to competence in a tactic and then search investigating whether primary school
compares pretraining performance to post- children could be trained to use theoreti-
training performance. The second compares cally more effective forms of self-regulated
trained learners to a group not trained in the learning than they had developed themselves
658 Winne · Nesbit

and, if so, whether training benefited reading, where “actions are given meaning, direction,
writing, mathematics, science, other areas and purpose by the goals that individuals seek
of academic performance, attributions, self- out, and. . . the quality and intensity of behav-
efficacy, and metacognitive strategies. Overall, ior will change as these goals change” (p. 174).
various kinds of training in self-regulated learn- As Covington noted, this distinction can be
ing produced a weighted effect size of 0.69. But arbitrary because the same behavior can be
there were two notable issues. First, results were conceived as reflecting both forms.
quite variable. Second, the research was overly We scan three main areas of contempo-
dependent on self-reports about psychological rary research, acknowledging that others are
events such as metacognition and uses of learn- omitted. Our choices reflect a judgment about
ing tactics. the intensity of recent work in educational
Metacognition is not “cold”—affect and psychology and fit our view of learners as
motivationally “hot” variables interact, includ- self-regulating.
ing attributions (Hacker et al. 2008), goal
orientations (Vrugt & Oort 2008), epistemo-

logical beliefs (Pieschl et al. 2008), and self- Achievement Goals
efficacy. The picture here is complex and incon- Achievement goals describe what learners ori-
sistent, in part because learners’ self-reports of ent to when learning, particularly the instru-
motivation may not correspond to choices they mental role of what is learned. The main re-
make to study (Zhou 2008). A broader model search question has been whether achievement
of metacognition is needed. goals existing before learning is engaged corre-
late with levels or types of learning. The reviews
by Covington (2000) and Meece et al. (2006)
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS provide ample evidence that different goals cor-
Motivation is conceptualized as a factor that relate variously with outcomes.
influences learning. It also is an outcome of A more interesting issue for self-regulated
learning sought for its own sake. As an influ- learning is whether achievement goals shape
ence, motivation divides into two broad cate- or constrain activities learners choose as they
gories: factors that direct or limit choices for strive for goals. According to this view, goals
engagement—choosing to study history for in- play the role of standards for metacogni-
terest but mathematics out of necessity, and tively monitoring situations—a task or the
factors that affect intensity of engagement— classroom—to classify them in terms of options
trying hard versus barely trying. As an outcome, for behavior. For example, students holding
motivations concern satisfaction or some other mastery approach goals, defined as intentions
inherent value. to deeply and thoroughly comprehend a sub-
The vast span of theories and empiri- ject, may judge that a situation affords oppor-
cal work on motivational factors and aca- tunity to substantially extend expertise. In con-
demic achievement was surveyed, in part, by trast, learners with performance approach goals
Covington (2000) and Meece et al. (2006). may classify that same situation (as an observer
Both reviews emphasized research on motiva- determines sameness) as offering excellent
tion arising from goal-orientation frameworks, chances to prove competence to others. Because
so we briefly update that topic before turning of their differing classifications, these learners
to other issues. may exercise metacognitive control to choose
Covington (2000) divided the field into two very different tactics for learning (e.g., Dweck
sectors grounded in Kelly’s (1955) distinction & Master 2008, Kolic-Vehovec et al. 2008, Miki
between (a) motives as drives, “an internal state, & Yamauchi 2005, Pintrich & De Groot 1990).
need or condition that impels individuals to- This line of research faces several chal-
ward action” (p. 173) and (b) motives as goals, lenges. First, learners are not unidimensional

in their goal orientations (Pintrich 2000), so experience feedback as they work. His model
bindings between goal orientations and learn- echoes Dewey’s (1913) notion that a fusion of
ing events are correspondingly complicated. productive cognition and positive affect abets
Second, self-reports have been almost the interest. Specifically, when feedback about task
only basis for researchers to identify goal ori- engagement supports a view of oneself as com-
entation(s) (cf. Zhou 2008). One-time self- petent, agentic, and accepted by others, the
reports about adopted goals have some inherent task and its method of engagement acquire a
validity—learners’ declarations are what they degree of interest. Future tasks can be moni-
are. But goals may be unstable, and the task’s tored for similar qualities, and the learner ac-
context may differ from the survey’s context cordingly regulates future perceptions as well as
(Dowson et al. 2006). Like goal orientations, engagement.
self-reports are almost the only data gathered Research on interest documents that when
to reflect tactics that learners use in learning. a situation is monitored to match a priori in-
These self-reports also are contextually sensi- terest, learners choose that situation, persist,
tive (Hadwin et al. 2001) and may not be trust- and report positive affect as expected. As a con-
worthy accounts of tactics learners actually use sequence of persistence, learners usually learn
during study ( Jamieson-Noel & Winne 2003, more (Ainley et al. 2002). However, interest
Winne & Jamieson-Noel 2002). can debilitate when it leads learners to regulate
Together, these challenges weaken prior learning by allocating more or more-intense
accounts about how goal orientations lead cognitive processing to less-relevant but inter-
to choices of learning tactics that directly esting content (Lehman et al. 2007, Senko &
raise achievement. In addition to develop- Miles 2008).
ing performance-based measures, gaining ex- Interest dynamically interacts in complex
perimental control over goal orientation is a ways with other variables that mediate the ef-
promising strategy for advancing research in fects of interest and interest itself. A tiny sam-
this area (Gano-Overway 2008). ple of the roll call of these variables follows.
Prior interest (Randler & Bogner 2007), prior
knowledge, and the structure of knowledge in
Interest the domain (Lawless & Kulikowich 2006) all
Interest predicts choices that learners make increase achievement and correlate with higher
about where and how intensely to focus atten- interest. Mastery goals and values attributed to
tion; whether to engage in an activity; and the tasks regarding their future utility and enjoy-
intensity of, concentration on, or persistence ment (Hulleman et al. 2008) predict higher in-
in that engagement. Interest also describes a terest but not necessarily higher achievement.
psychological state of positive affect related to Self-concept of ability (Denissen et al. 2007)
features a learner perceives about the environ- positively correlates with interest and medi-
ment. Following a revival of research on interest ates achievement. Need for cognition (Dai &
and learning in the early 1990s (Renninger et al. Wang 2007) does the same. To this list we add
1992), two main forms of interest have been self-monitoring and regulation, which we the-
differentiated. Individual interest captures the orize increase students’ sense of task-specific
predictive quality of interest, as in “I’m inter- agency and consequently interest (Goddard &
ested in science.” Situational interest arises ei- Sendi 2008). Given the centrality of teachers’
ther from an opportunistic interaction between and parents’ concerns about students’ inter-
a person and features of the transient environ- ests in school topics and tasks, this tangle of
ment or because a learner exercises volition to findings begs for order. Some order might be
create a context that is interesting. achieved by applying Occam’s razor to coalesce
Krapp (2005) reviewed research supporting an overabundance of currently differentiated
a model that interest arises because learners variables.
660 Winne · Nesbit

Epistemic Beliefs members. It is theorized to offer multiple so-
cial, motivational, behavioral, metacognitive,
Epistemic beliefs describe views a learner holds
and academic benefits. O’Donnell (2006) ob-
about features that distinguish information
served that the varied models of peer-supported
from knowledge, how knowledge originates,
learning are founded on theories emphasizing
and whether and how knowledge changes. Two
sociomotivational or cognitive aspects of the
studies sparked an explosion of research in this
collaborative process.
area. The first was Perry’s (1970) longitudi-
Sociomotivationally grounded approaches
nal study of undergraduates’ developing views
to cooperative learning highlight the role of
of these topics. The second was Schommer’s
positive interdependence among group mem-
(1990) extension of Ryan’s (1984) study, show-
bers and individual accountability of each mem-
ing that epistemic beliefs moderated compre-
ber. These approaches lead to forming groups
hension of text.
that are heterogeneous in ability, gender, and
A general conclusion is that epistemic be-
ethnicity, and suggest teachers set goals that
liefs predict interactions: When information

require students to work together. For example,
is complex and probabilistic and its applica-
Slavin (1996) developed types of cooperative
tion in tasks cannot be definitively prescribed—
learning in which the whole group is rewarded

when a task is ill-structured—learners who hold
for each of its members’ gains in performance,
less well developed and less flexible epistemic
thus incentivizing mutual support for learning
beliefs recall, learn, argue, and solve prob-
within the group. In what he called the social
lems less well than do peers with better devel-
cohesion approach (e.g., Johnson & Johnson
oped snd more flexible epistemic beliefs (e.g.,
1991), small groups work on developing social
Mason & Scirica 2006, Stathopoulou &
skills, concern for others, and giving productive
Vosniadou 2007). But when tasks and informa-
feedback and encouragement. In this approach,
tion are not ill structured, holding sophisticated
group members take on predefined roles
epistemological beliefs can interfere with re-
(e.g., note keeper), and the teacher assigns a
call and comprehension (Bräten et al. 2008). In
single grade for the group’s work to reduce
short, match of aptitude to task matters.
intragroup competition and promote positive
Muis (2007) synthesized theory and research
interdependence.
on epistemic beliefs and self-regulated learning.
Moderate achievement benefits arise from
She offered four main conclusions. First, learn-
types of peer-supported learning that include
ers observe features of tasks that reflect epis-
positive interdependence, particularly in the
temic qualities (Muis 2008). Second, they use
form of interdependent reward contingencies
these perceptions to set goals and frame plans
(Rohrbeck et al. 2003, Slavin 1996). Using
for accomplishing work. Third, as work on a
structured roles, as advocated by social cohe-
task proceeds, learners use epistemic standards
sion theorists, appears to have little or no ef-
to metacognitively monitor and regulate learn-
fect on achievement (Rohrbeck et al. 2003) but
ing processes (Dahl et al. 2005). Last, engag-
may boost students’ social competence and self-
ing in successful self-regulated learning can al-
concept (Ginsburg-Block et al. 2006). Peer-
ter epistemic beliefs, specifically, toward a more
supported learning interventions are particu-
constructivist stance (Verschaffel et al. 1999).
larly effective in boosting achievement, social
competence, self-concept, and task behavior
CONTEXT FACTORS among urban, low-income, minority students
(Ginsburg-Block et al. 2006, Rohrbeck et al.
Peer-Supported Learning 2003). Cooperative tasks designed to enhance
Peer-supported learning encompasses collabo- student autonomy, such as allowing students to
rative, cooperative, and small-group arrange- select goals and monitor and evaluate perfor-
ments in dyads or groups of up to about six mance, enhance social skills, self-concept, and

achievement. A plausible but unresearched hy- encouragements are leading students to set
pothesis is that practicing metacognitive con- higher standards for metacognitive monitoring.
trol at the group level may help internalize In Piagetian terms, equal-status peer inter-
metacognitive control at the individual level. actions are more likely to trigger cognitive dis-
Cognitive theories of peer-supported learn- equilibrium, thus engendering more engaged
ing claim it strengthens individual students’ cooperation than do adult-child interactions
cognitive and metacognitive operations more (De Lisi 2002). After exposure to peers’ differ-
than solo learning. Peer-supported learning is ing beliefs, dialogue can develop a new under-
thought to offer more opportunities for re- standing that restores equilibrium. In Piaget’s
trieving and activating schemas, elaborating theory, this process is hindered if collabora-
new knowledge, self-monitoring, and exercis- tors have unequal status, as in adult-child inter-
ing metacognitive control (O’Donnell 2006). actions, because the higher-status participant
For example, using a method called guided is less likely to be challenged, and the lower-
reciprocal peer questioning (King 2002), a status participant tends to accept the other’s
teacher might present a list of generic ques- beliefs with little cognitive engagement. In
tion stems such as “How does . . . affect . . . ?” other words, this is a form of self-handicapping
and invite students to use the question stems metacognitive monitoring and control. In con-
to generate topic-relevant questions they can trast, Vygotsky (1978) held that children con-
pose within their small group or dyad. Students struct knowledge primarily by internalizing in-
can also learn to pose metacognitive questions, teractions with a more capable participant who
such as “How do you know that?” Having pairs adjusts guidance to match the less capable par-
of elementary students generate questions from ticipant’s growing ability. This calls for sophisti-
cognitive question stems can enhance learning cated monitoring of a peer’s understanding and
outcomes (King 1994, King et al. 1998), but the sensitive metacognitive control that is gradu-
efficacy of metacognitive prompting by peers is ally released to the developing learner. Studies
less certain. of learning gains by children who collabora-
A student who helps another by generat- tively solved problems without external feed-
ing an explanation often learns more from the back found that among children paired with
exchange than does the student who receives a lower-ability, similar-ability, or higher-ability
the explanation (Webb & Palincsar 1996). In partner, only those paired with a higher-ability
research investigating why only some students partner tended to benefit from collaboration
who need help benefit from explanations, Webb (Fawcett & Garton 2005, Garton & Pratt 2001,
& Mastergeorge (2003) described several qual- Tudge 1992). Tudge (1992) found that the
ities of successful help-seekers. They persisted members of similar-ability dyads were at risk
in requesting help until they obtained expla- of regressing in performance as a result of col-
nations they understood. They attempted to laboration. These results favor Vygotsky’s over
solve problems without assistance and asked Piaget’s account of how status among collabo-
for specific explanations rather than answers rators stimulates knowledge construction.
to problems. These students adopted difficult How can learners of nearly equal knowledge
but productive standards for monitoring and and ability benefit from collaboration? How
controlling learning. Classroom observations can more-capable children adjust help given to
by Webb et al. (2008) indicate that teachers meet a peer’s needs when they may be unable to
in primary grades can substantially increase the monitor even their own abilities? Answers may
quality and quantity of explanations peers gen- lie in cognitive strategy instruction in which
erate in collaborative groups by encouraging (a) the teacher guides and models group inter-
them to request additional explanations that ex- actions and (b) students are assigned to roles that
tend or clarify an initial explanation. From the require metacognitive monitoring (Palincsar
perspective of SRL, teachers who provide such & Herrenkohl 2002). This approach is best
662 Winne · Nesbit

reflected in research on reciprocal teaching to collaboration and, if so, which aspects of
improve the reading comprehension of below- self-regulation affect qualities of collaboration
average readers. Here, the teacher’s role grad- that recursively promote academic achieve-
ually shifts from direct explanation and model- ment. In what is perhaps the most informative
ing to coaching group interactions. A review of research in this area, low-achieving students
quantitative studies found that reciprocal teach- were induced to approach a collaborative
ing is consistently more effective than are meth- problem-solving activity with either learning
ods in which teachers lead students in read- or performance goals as standards for mon-
ing and answering questions about text passages itoring interactions (Gabriele 2007). Those
(Rosenshine & Meister 1994). with a learning goal demonstrated higher
For social-cognitive theorists, collaboration comprehension monitoring, more constructive
is an academic context to which individu- collaborative engagement, and higher posttest
als bring personal efficacy and achievement performance. Without further research like
goals. Surprisingly, there is a lack of social- this, the role played by metacognitive moni-
cognitive research on peer-supported learn- toring and control in peer-supported learning

ing (Pintrich et al. 2003). This is not because will remain obscure.
social-cognitive theories have no implications

for collaborative learning. As an example, stu-
dents who have performance avoidance goals Classrooms and Class Size
and low personal efficacy are less likely to seek The relationship between class size and student
help from teachers and are theoretically also achievement has been widely studied. This issue
less willing to seek help from peers (Webb & is so alluring it has attracted researchers even
Mastergeorge 2003). These students monitor from economics and sociology. Smith & Glass’s
collaborations using standards that handicap (1980) meta-analysis established that reducing
learning or lack skills for interacting with peers class size tends to raise students’ achievement
in more productive ways. At a more fundamen- in a nonlinear relationship. Removing one stu-
tal level, Bandura (2000) argued human groups dent from a class of thirty tends to raise the
manifest a collective efficacy, the members’ per- class mean far less than removing one student
ceptions of the efficacy of the group. Because from a class of two. In textbooks and thumbnail
collective efficacy is interdependent with group reviews, the nonlinearity of the effect is usually
performance and the personal efficacy of its reduced to a simpler principle: gains in achieve-
members, it has potentially important but un- ment are achieved when class size falls to 15
explored implications for peer-supported learn- students or fewer.
ing. These and other unexamined implications Project STAR (Student Teacher Achieve-
of sociocognitive theory are opportunities to ment Ratio), a large-scale experiment on class
elaborate peer-supported learning in terms of size, is lauded as one of the most significant
metacognitive monitoring and control. educational investigations ever conducted
Research has offered only weak accounts (Mosteller 1995). The project randomly
of the many opportunities for metacognitive assigned approximately 12,000 Tennessee
monitoring and control in peer-supported elementary school students and their teachers
learning, including soliciting and giving ex- to small (13–17 students) and regular-sized
planation, sharing appropriate schemas, and (22–25 students) classes. The students entered
using appropriate standards for monitoring the experiment in kindergarten, grade 1, grade
progress. Feldmann & Martinezpons (1995) 2, or grade 3. Although the intervention ended
found that individual self-regulation beliefs after grade 3, achievement data were collected
predicted collaborative verbal behavior and until grade 9. In one analysis of the STAR data,
individual achievement. However, there is little Krueger (1999) concluded that students in their
evidence that self-regulatory ability improves first year of small classes scored an average of

4 percentiles higher and increased that advan- cooperative learning strategies that become
tage in subsequent years of small classes by more feasible in smaller classes.
about 1 percentile per year. This analysis offers This is consistent with conclusions of the
limited value to policy makers because the cost STAR project. On the whole, teachers assigned
of reducing class sizes by one third is high, to smaller classes did not strategically modify
and other interventions are known to produce their teaching (Finn & Achilles 1999). Indeed,
larger effects. Even more concerning is that taking a sociological perspective, Finn et al.
the benefits of some educational interven- (2003) proposed that improved learning out-
tions diminish rapidly after the intervention comes in small classes are strongly mediated by
terminates. students’ sense of belonging and their academic
Fortunately, a more-detailed picture has and social engagement. Students’ choices about
emerged from the STAR data. Krueger (1999) how they learn and teachers’ choices about how
reported that low-socioeconomic-status (SES) they teach are manifestations of metacognitive
students, African American students, and inner- control. These choices are shaped by standards
city students all benefited from small class sizes they each use to metacognitively monitor their
more than did the general population. Evi- circumstances and themselves. In short, stan-
dence has also emerged that benefits obtained dards matter. How do students and teachers ac-
from small class sizes in grades K–3, including quire them, search for and select them, and use
the extra gains for disadvantaged groups, per- them in these situations?
sisted until at least grade 8 (Nye et al. 2004). If resources are allocated to decreasing class
There is an important complication: Small class sizes in the early grades, how can administrators
sizes tend to increase variability in achievement and teachers know when students are ready to
and expand the gap between the highest- and learn in larger classrooms, where they have less
lowest-achieving students (Konstantopoulos teacher support? We speculate that students’
2008). Still more challenging is that re- abilities to independently monitor and regulate
cent observational research reports no positive their learning are crucial to successful perfor-
achievement effects from small class sizes in mance in larger classes. We recommend devel-
kindergarten (Milesi & Gamoran 2006). oping performance-based tools to assess when
Research relating class size and demo- children have self-regulating skills for learning
graphic variables to achievement fails to explain where there is less teacher attention.
how learning is affected. Looking inside the
black box of class size could shine light on this
mystery. Blatchford and colleagues (2002, 2007) Homework
conducted a series of systematic observations in In her article “Homework is a Complicated
England of teaching and learning in small and Thing,” Corno (1996) described difficulties
regular-sized classrooms for students ages 11 in forming widely applicable, evidence-based
and under. They found that children in small homework policies. Corno’s title is still the best
classes interacted more with their teachers, re- one-line summation of what is known about the
ceived more one-to-one instruction, and paid psychology of homework. This is yet another
more attention to their teachers (Blatchford case illustrating that hundreds of investigations
et al. 2002, 2007). Teachers and observers in using a variety of methods have only weakly in-
small classes reported that more time was allo- formed teaching practices and policy, perhaps
cated to assessing individual student products because these studies failed to consider learners
and progress. Despite these impacts on teach- as metacognitive agents.
ing, Blatchford et al. (2007) concluded teachers Teachers assign readings, problem sets, re-
may not take full advantage of reduced class size. ports, and projects as homework for a vari-
They often persisted with more whole-class in- ety of instructional purposes, including prac-
struction than necessary and failed to adopt ticing skills demonstrated in class, preparing
664 Winne · Nesbit

for class discussions, and creatively integrat- 1989). In a review of studies correlating self-
ing and applying knowledge acquired from reported time spent on homework and achieve-
multiple sources (Epstein & Van Voorhis ment, Cooper et al. (2006) statistically de-
2001). Homework also may be assigned tected a positive weighted average effect size of
with intentions to develop time-management r = 0.25 for high school students but did not
and other self-regulatory skills, stimulate detect an effect for elementary students. They
parental involvement, and foster parent-teacher reported some evidence of a curvilinear rela-
communication. tionship between amount of homework and
Historically, homework has been controver- performance. In Lam’s study of grade 12 stu-
sial. Periodic calls to abolish it are grounded dents cited by Cooper et al. (2006), the benefit
in claims that it is instructionally ineffective from homework was strongest for students do-
and pulls time away from family activities. ing 7 to 12 hours of homework per week and
Calls for abolishing homework interleave with weakest for students doing more than 20 or less
calls for assigning more homework to increase than 6 hours per week.
children’s preparation for a knowledge-based, Trautwein and colleagues (Trautwein 2007,

competitive world. Homework can be misused Trautwein et al. 2009) argued that homework is
when teachers assign too much or use it to pun- a “classic example of the multi-level problem”
ish (Corno 1996). In investigating links between whereby generally positive effects of homework
stress and homework, Kouzma & Kennedy reported in Cooper’s meta-analyses mask con-
(2002) found Australian senior high school siderable underlying complexity. Working with
students reported a mean of 37 hours of home- data from 1275 Swiss students in 70 eighth-
work per week. Time spent on homework cor- grade classes, they distinguished three levels of
related with self-reported mood disturbance. analysis. At the class level, they found a positive
Advocates for educational equity have claimed relationship between the frequency of home-
that homework can increase the performance work assigned by teachers and classes’ achieve-
gap between high- and low-achieving students ment. At the between-individual level, achieve-
(McDermott et al. 1984). ment related positively to students’ homework
The relationship between homework and effort but negatively to homework time. At the
academic achievement is most fully mapped intraindividual level, in which students were
in two landmark meta-analyses (Cooper 1989, assessed longitudinally, the time-achievement
Cooper et al. 2006). Cooper (1989) set out a effect flipped direction—homework time
detailed model of homework effects that in- related positively to achievement.
cludes (a) exogenous factors such as student Cooper and Trautwein and their colleagues
ability and subject matter, and assignment char- call for better-designed and more-ambitious
acteristics such as amount and purpose; (b) class- research on homework. As in so many ar-
room factors, such as the provision of materials; eas of educational research, there is a need
(c) home-community factors, such as activities for large-scale experiments, longitudinal ob-
competing for student time; and (d ) classroom servations, hierarchical analyses, and improved
follow-up factors, such as feedback and uses of methods for gathering qualitative, time-on-
homework in class discussions. The strongest task, and fine-grained data that trace cognitive
evidence for homework’s efficacy comes from processes. Research also is needed on the ef-
intervention studies, some using random as- fects of potentially moderating variables such
signment, in which students were or were not as culture, grade level, subject area, cognitive
given homework. Cooper’s meta-analyses sta- ability, and the manifold factors identified in
tistically detected advantages due to homework Cooper’s model. Finally, there is a need to de-
in these studies, with weighted mean effect velop and investigate innovative homework ac-
sizes for student test performance of d = 0.60 tivities and compare them with conventional
(Cooper et al. 2006) and d = 0.21 (Cooper forms of homework.

Alongside these macro-level relations, we activities, parental attitudes toward reading,
theorize self-regulation is a key factor in de- and number of books at home) in mediating
termining the effects of homework activities. the relationship between parental education
Here, there is a dearth of research. In one and reading performance. He found the
observational study, Zimmerman & Kitsantas home literacy environment strongly predicted
(2005) found that homework experiences pos- reading achievement even after statistically
itively predicted secondary students’ sense of controlling for parental education, but it only
personal responsibility and self-efficacy be- partially mediated the relationship between
liefs, including self-monitoring and organizing. parental education and reading performance.
Those beliefs predicted academic achievement. Another factor that may account for bet-
In research on the other side of the recip- ter reading performance by higher-SES chil-
rocal relationship, training in homework self- dren is orally transmitted vocabulary. A U.S.
monitoring was equally effective as parental study (Farkas & Beron 2004) found a gap be-
monitoring in raising homework-completion tween the oral vocabulary of high- and low-
rates above those of a no-intervention control SES children by three years of age, but this
group (Toney et al. 2003). did not increase after children entered kinder-
garten. This suggests that school helps equalize

Socioeconomic Status prior differences between children from differ-
ent socioeconomic backgrounds. A structural
In educational research, SES is most commonly
equation modeling study found that parent-
measured by a composite of parents’ educa-
led home learning experiences (e.g., reading,
tion, occupation, and income. Despite older,
games, and trips to the zoo or park) medi-
widespread beliefs about its overwhelming pre-
ated the relationship between SES and liter-
dictive power, SES is only a moderately strong
acy (Foster et al. 2005). We have not found
predictor (relative to other known factors)
research investigating the relationship between
of school achievement in the United States
SES and metacognitive monitoring and control
(White 1982). The most recent meta-analysis
and whether these skills mediate the effects of
of U.S. studies found correlations between
SES on achievement. Thus, a full explanation
SES and achievement of 0.23 to 0.30 when
of how SES affects learning is not available.
measured at the student level (Sirin 2005). By
In summary, low SES appears to create
comparison, this effect size is about the same
significant but not insurmountable barriers to
as the meta-analytically derived correlation
achievement in elementary school and beyond.
between parental involvement and achieve-
The effects of SES are likely mediated by fac-
ment (Fan & Chen 2001) and considerably
tors such as educational resources available in
weaker than correlations of achievement with
the home, parental aspirations for their chil-
educational resources available in the home
dren’s education, home literacy activities, and
(r = 0.51) (Sirin 2005) and parental attitudes
parental transmission of oral vocabulary. More
toward education (r = 0.55) (White 1982).
high-quality research is needed to investigate
Internationally, the effects of SES are pervasive
the most effective types of interventions for
and operate both within and between countries
low-SES children, especially whether programs
(Chiu & Xihua 2008).
that develop metacognitive and self-regulatory
Determining which factors mediate
skills could reduce the disadvantages they face.
the relationship between SES and students’
achievement is challenging because the relevant
research is observational, and data range in lev- PERSISTENT DEBATES
els from the student to whole countries. Using
multilevel modeling of data from 25 countries,
Learning and Cognitive Styles
Park (2008) investigated the role of the home We have never met a teacher who held
literacy environment (early home literacy that teaching is maximally successful when all
666 Winne · Nesbit

learners are taught identically. The opposite expectations, matching instruction to style does
view—that teaching should adapt to learn- not have reliable effects (Coffield et al. 2004).
ers’ individual differences—requires identify- There are challenges to using styles in psy-
ing one or more qualities of learners upon chological accounts of school performance.
which to pivot features of instruction. One class First, thorough and critical syntheses of the psy-
of such qualities is styles. chometric properties and validity of self-report
Allport (1937) is credited with introducing style measures are scant. One of the few was
the phrase “cognitive style” to describe peo- Pittenger’s (1993) review of the Myers-Briggs
ple’s preferred or customary approaches to per- Type Indicator. He concluded, “. . .there is no
ception and cognition. When situations involve convincing evidence to justify that knowledge
learning, stylistic approaches are termed “learn- of type is a reliable or valid predictor of impor-
ing styles” (Cassidy 2004). tant behavioral conditions” (p. 483). Second,
In an early paper, Messick (1970) distin- studies investigating the match of self-
guished nine cognitive styles. More recently, reports to behaviors are also rare. Krätzig &
Coffield et al. (2004) cataloged 71 different Arbuthnott’s (2006) study of visual, auditory,
models grouped into 13 families. Kozhevnikov kinesthetic, and mixed learning styles found no
(2007) classified 10 major groupings. Sternberg correlation between self-reported preferences

et al. (2008) collapsed all these into two cate- for styles and objective scores on cognitive tasks
gories. Ability-based styles characterize the typ- measuring what the style was about. The study
ical approach(es) a learner takes in achievement of field dependency-independence by Miyake
tasks, such as representing givens in a prob- et al. (2001) led them to conclude that this style
lem using symbolic expressions or diagrams. “should be construed more as a cognitive abil-
Personality-based styles describe a learner’s ity, rather than a cognitive style” (p. 456).
preference(s) for using abilities. Typical and
preferred approaches may or may not match.
A recent theoretical synthesis (Kozhevnikov Discovery Learning
2007) described styles as “heuristics [that] can Discovery learning is most strongly associated
be identified at each level of information pro- with science and math education. It has roots in
cessing, from perceptual to metacognitive. . . the Piagetian view that “each time one prema-
[whose] main function is regulatory, control- turely teaches a child something he could have
ling processes from automatic data encoding discovered for himself, that child is kept from
to conscious allocation of cognitive resources.” inventing it and consequently from understand-
Very few studies are researching this view. The ing it completely” (Piaget 1970, p. 715). Bruner
vast majority of research in educational set- (1961) theorized that discovery learning fosters
tings aligns with Messick’s (1984) view that intrinsic motivation, leads to an understand-
styles “are spontaneously applied without con- ing of and inclination toward the heuristics
scious consideration or choice across a wide of inquiry, and allows for the active self-
variety of situations” (p. 61). Therefore, stud- organization of new knowledge in a way that
ies have mainly developed and contrasted self- fits the specific prior knowledge of the learner.
report inventories or explored correlates of According to Hammer (1997, p. 489), discovery
styles while attempting to show that match- learning usually “refers to a form of curriculum
ing styles to forms of instruction has benefits in which students are exposed to particular
while mismatching does not. Learners often questions and experiences in such a way that
can reliably describe themselves as behaving they ‘discover’ for themselves the intended
stylistically. Their reports correlate moderately concepts.” In unguided and minimally guided
with various demographic variables, individ- discovery learning, the role of the teacher is
ual differences, and achievement (e.g., Watkins constrained to providing a learning environ-
2001, Zhang & Sternberg 2001). Contrary to ment or problem space and perhaps posing

questions. In discovery learning, teacher-posed to teaching primary reading, direct instruc-
questions should lead the student toward tion has been successful within a wide range
Piagetian disequilibrium, which is conceived of general- and special-education programs
as cognitive conflict between prior knowledge at the elementary level (Swanson & Hoskyn
and new information from the environment. 1998).
Proponents of discovery learning believe Discovery learning has been seen as a tool
it produces highly durable and transferable for acquiring difficult, developmentally signif-
knowledge, a claim consistent with some ob- icant knowledge, such as the control of vari-
servational evidence. For example, children in ables strategy (CVS) used in designing experi-
grades one and two who spontaneously in- ments. However, when Klahr & Nigam (2004)
vented and used arithmetic strategies subse- randomly assigned elementary students to learn
quently showed greater understanding of base CVS by discovery or direct instruction, many
10 number concepts and better performance more succeeded in the direct-instruction condi-
on transfer problems than did children who tion. Moreover, on an authentic transfer task in-
initially acquired the standard arithmetic algo- volving evaluating science fair posters, the many
rithms from instruction (Carpenter et al. 1998). students in the direct instruction condition who
In a widely cited review, Mayer (2004) showed success while learning performed as
criticized discovery methods that emphasize well as the few students in the discovery group
unguided exploration in learning environments who also showed success while learning. Dean
and problem spaces. Describing a belief in the & Kuhn (2007) randomly assigned students
value of pure discovery learning as “like some learning CVS to direct instruction, discovery
zombie that keeps returning from its grave” learning, and a combination of the two. Direct
(p. 17), he reviewed investigations in three instruction was presented only during an initial
domains—problem-solving rules, conservation session, and the discovery learning treatment
strategies, and Logo programming strategies. extended over 12 sessions. In this study, direct
Mayer (2004) observed how in each case, ac- instruction produced an immediate advantage,
cumulated evidence favored methods in which which disappeared in a posttest and a transfer
learners received guidance. He questioned task given several weeks after the termination of
the supposed connection between discovery the discovery learning sessions. Although both
teaching methods and constructivist theories, of these experiments implemented direct in-
arguing that cognitive activity, not behavioral struction as a single session in which CVS was
activity, is the essential requirement for con- presented and modeled by a teacher, the experi-
structivist learning. He maintained that, as a ments failed to include teacher-guided practice
consequence, “active-learning” interventions with feedback, which is a powerful and essential
such as hands-on work with materials and component of direct instruction.
group discussions are effective only when they A review by Kirschner et al. (2006) explained
promote cognitive engagement directed toward the evidence against minimally guided instruc-
educational goals. tion in terms of cognitive load theory. They
The debate often pits discovery learning cast discovery learning as a type of problem
against direct instruction. Direct instruction solving that requires a cognitively demanding
is a broad domain of explicit teaching prac- search in a problem space. According to cogni-
tices that include stating learning goals, review- tive load theory, such a search is extrinsic load
ing prerequisite knowledge, presenting new that requires time and cognitive resources that
information in small steps, offering clear in- otherwise could be used for understanding and
structions and explanations, providing opportu- elaborative processing of solution schemas. To
nity for frequent practice, guiding performance, support this claim, they cited evidence that
and giving customized, explanatory feedback novices learn to solve problems more effec-
(Rosenshine 1987). Originating as an approach tively by initially studying worked solutions
668 Winne · Nesbit

before starting to solve problems (Tuovinen & optics experiments. A new tip became acces-
Sweller 1999). sible every three minutes and could be con-
Rittle-Johnson (2006) pointed out that dis- sulted at any time thereafter. Although consult-
covery learning theorists tend to conflate the ing the tips was optional, and tips contained no
two separate cognitive processes of reasoning information that was directly assessed by the
about solutions and inventing them. She did a posttest, students randomly assigned to a condi-
2 × 2 experiment in which elementary school tion that provided the tips outperformed peers
children learning the concept of mathematical in a control condition on the posttest. A poten-
equivalence were assigned to either instruction tial drawback to this type of optional support is
or invention and either self-explanation or no that students may misjudge their need for guid-
self-explanation. The invention condition of- ance and fail to access a needed tip or make
fered no advantages. Both instruction and self- excessive use of tips to avoid genuine cogni-
explanation conditions produced advantages tive engagement with the problem (Aleven et al.
for procedural learning on a delayed posttest, 2003). Theories about guided learning that may
and only self-explanation produced advantages emerge from such research should strive to
for transfer. It may be that self-directed account for the motivational, cognitive, and
elaborative processing, in this case manifested metacognitive factors reviewed in this article.
as self-explanation, is the only way to obtain
high-level transfer (Salomon & Perkins 1989).
The search of the problem space entailed by METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
unguided discovery may hinder high-level IN MODELING A PSYCHOLOGY
transfer by taxing cognitive resources. OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Another explanation of evidence favor-
ing guided instruction is that students lack
Paradigmatic Issues
metacognitive skills needed to learn from The psychology of school achievement has
unguided exploration. They may be unable to been studied mainly within a paradigm that we
manage time to explore all relevant possibil- suggest faces difficult challenges. Intending no
ities, keep track of which conditions and cases disrespect, we call this the “snapshot, bookend,
they have already explored, accurately monitor between-groups paradigm”—SBBG for short.
what they know and need to know, and monitor Recall Roediger’s (2008) conclusion that the
what works over the course of learning. “only sort of general law, is that in making any
There is a need for better theory and generalization about memory one must add that
evidentiary support for principles of guided ‘it depends’” (p. 247). We posit that his claim
discovery. We recommend investigating mul- generalizes to most if not all findings in a psy-
tiple ways of guiding discovery so that, ideally, chology about the way things are because of
every child is led to the brink of invention rules for doing research according to the SBBG
and extensive search of the problem space is paradigm.
avoided. Metacognitive guidance could include SBBG is snapshot because data that reflect
suggestions to generate a hypothesis, to make the effect of a causal variable almost always are
a detailed action plan, and to monitor the gap collected just once, after an intervention is over.
between the research question and the obser- We acknowledge some studies are longitudinal
vations. These cognitive and metacognitive but maintain that snapshot studies overwhelm-
activities improve learning outcomes (Veenman ingly form the basis of today’s psychology of
et al. 1994). academic achievement.
The timing of metacognitive guidance may Beyond the shortcoming of insufficiently
be critical. Hulshof & de Jong (2006) provided tracing events between the bookends of a
“just-in-time” instructional tips in a computer- learning session, there is another reason that
based environment for conducting simulated educational psychology’s snapshot-oriented

research paradigm may model academic impracticalities might be overcome using
achievement incompletely. Students in class- software technologies.) Thus, in bookend ex-
rooms and people in training learn new infor- periments, psychological processes that unfold
mation and shift motivation and affect across as learners experience the intervention must
time. A snapshot study captures just one be inferred rather than validated using fine-
posttest or pre-to-post segment within a longer grained data gathered over time between the
trajectory of psychological events. The field has experiment’s bookends (Winne & Nesbit 2009).
insufficiently attended to how segments con- Traces of processing allow opening the book
catenate. This is a necessary concern in mod- between a traditional experiment’s bookends
eling a trajectory of learning because the next and viewing each “page” situated in relation
segment may not match a researcher’s predicted to prior events and following events. This
concatenation. But this issue is not one to vali- allows merging psychologies of “the way things
date analytically and a priori. Data are required are” with “the way learners make things.”
to characterize how, at any point in the trajec- Modeling should honor the dual role of events
tory of a learning activity, a learner metacogni- observed at points within the intervention, first
tively monitors and exercises the metacognitive as the outcome of prior psychological process
control that forms a trajectory of learning. and second as a process that generates the
SBBG is a bookend paradigm because re- next state. Empirically investigating a learning
searchers rarely gather data representing proxi- trajectory, therefore, entails gathering data that
mally cognitive or motivational events between can more fully contribute to accounting for
the time when learners are randomly assigned change over time. This stands in contrast to
to an intervention and the time when potential data that reflect only the cumulative products
effects are measured after the intervention is of multiple processes that unfold over time
over. Ideally, random assignment reduces the with an intervention.
necessity to gather data before an intervention. SBBG is a between-groups paradigm be-
(But see Winne 2006 for an argument about cause it forces interpretations about whether
challenges to random assignment as a panacea an intervention changes learners’ achievement
for erasing extraneous variance.) Otherwise, to be grounded in differences (variance) be-
premeasures are secured to reduce “error” vari- tween the central tendencies of a treatment
ance by blocking or statistically residualizing group versus a comparison group. Data are
the outcome variable. (But see Winne 1983 for lacking that trace how learners make things.
challenges to interpretation that arise in this Therefore, variance within each group due, in
case.) Random assignment and premeasures part, to individuals’ self-regulating learning—
cannot identify cognitive processes that create metacognitive monitoring and control applied
changes in achievement. Randomness cannot “on the fly” —has to be treated as “residual” or
help researchers interpret a systematic effect. “error.” In fact, the epitome of an experiment
Change in a learner’s achievement can be in the between-groups tradition would zero out
conditioned by an aptitude that remains con- individual differences in the ways learners make
stant for that learner during the intervention, things.
but that change cannot be caused unless this If learners are agents, this approach
aptitude varies during the intervention. leaves out key parts of the story about how
An alternative that could illuminate achievement changes. The between-groups
achievement-changing processes inside an experimental approach relieves this tension by
intervention is to gather data to proximally explaining effects in terms of a psychological
trace those processes (Borsboom et al. 2003, process that does not vary across individuals
Winne 1982). Regrettably, data of this kind despite researchers’ belief in variance in the way
are rarely gathered because it is impractical. learners make things. Thus, without opening
(But see Winne 2006 for ideas about how the book of each group member’s experience,
670 Winne · Nesbit

“between-subjects models do not imply, test, individual learners do inside the span of a learn-
or support causal accounts that are valid at the ing session and how each learner adjusts goals,
individual level” (Borsboom et al. 2003, p. 214). tactics, and perceptions have been of interest.
The result is that a psychology about the way But these generating variables have rarely been
things are becomes an “it depends” science directly operationalized and, when acknowl-
because between-groups experiments must edged, they are mostly treated as error variance
neglect causal effects that arise from individual terms in analyses of data. The second stream of
differences in the way learners make things. studies seeks to operationalize reciprocally de-
termined relations among a learner’s metacog-
nition, broadly conceptualized, and outcomes.
A Revised Paradigm In these studies, bookend variables set a stage of
We suggest that a more productive psychol- movable props: standards for metacognitively
ogy of academic achievement should probe and monitoring and choices exercised in metacogni-
map how learners construct and use informative control. Learners choose the information-
tion within boundaries set by the way things are. processing tools they use within bounds of a
This entails three major paradigmatic changes. psychology of the way things are.
First, gather data that trace variance in learn- We take as prima facie that changes in aca-
ers’ psychological states over time during an in- demic achievement have origins in psycholog-
tervention. Supplement snapshot data. Second, ical phenomena. Snapshot, bookend between-
conceptualize trajectories of learning as a suc- groups studies in educational psychology have
cession of outcomes reciprocally determined by not traced those phenomena, as Winne (1983)
learners who choose information and modes and Borsboom et al. (2003) argued. Educational
of processing it to construct successive infor- psychology should turn its attention to methods
mational products. Read between bookends. that penetrate correlations among distal vari-
Third, in the many situations where random ables. The goal should be to develop maps of
assignment is not feasible and even where it is, proximal psychological processes that reflect
define groups of learners a posteriori in terms causes of learning. In doing so, we hypothe-
of trace data that prove learners to be approx- size research must concern itself with learn-
imately homogenous in their information pro- ers’ metacognitive monitoring and control.
cessing. Fix causes at the individual level, then These processes set into motion forms of self-
explore for mediating and moderating vari- regulated learning that have been demonstrated
ables post hoc. A paradigm that includes tracing to influence achievement. Studies should be not
agents’ self-regulated processes provides raw only more intensely focused on proximal indi-
materials that can support grounded accounts cators of psychological processes; researchers
of what happens in the psychology of academic also need to gather data inside the bookends
achievement at the same time it accommodates of learning sessions to track reciprocally de-
variations in instructional designs. termined relations that shape learning trajec-
tories. In short, we recommend that snapshot,
bookend between-groups research be comple-
SHAPES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH mented with a microgenetic method (Siegler &
We judge that the field of educational psy- Crowley 1991). This suggests several require-
chology is in the midst of striving to integrate ments. One is operationally defining traces to
two streams. One stream investigates whether describe which psychological processes in the
achievement improves by manipulating instruc- realm of “the way things are” are applied dur-
tional conditions (e.g., class size, discovery ing learning. Another is determining which
learning) or accommodating trait-like individ- standards learners apply in their metacognitive
ual differences (e.g., epistemic beliefs) or social monitoring that leads to metacognitive control.
conditions (e.g., SES). In these studies, what These data model the way learners make things.

By a mix of natural exploration and instruc- learners are in the driver’s seat, educational psy-
tion, learners develop their own heuristics, re- chology needs a model of how learners drive to
flective of a naı̈ve psychology of the way things understand more fully how they reach desti-
are, about how cognitive and external factors nations of academic achievement. By incorpo-
can be arranged to acquire and successfully rating metacognition and its larger-scale form,
use academic knowledge. As agents, they oper- self-regulated learning, into data and analyses of
ationalize those heuristics by metacognitively data, rather than randomizing out these factors,
monitoring and controlling mental states and we submit a psychology of academic achieve-
by manipulating external factors. By tracking ment can advance theoretically and offer more
their academic achievements and side effects powerful principles for practice.
over time, they become informed about how to Our hypothesis is that gluing together the
regulate engagement in learning to improve the two psychologies of the way things are and the
results of subsequent engagements. In short, way learners make things will reduce the de-
over time, self-regulating learners experiment gree of Roediger’s “it depends” hedge on laws of
with learning to improve how they learn along- memory (and learning). Two inherent sources
side what they learn (Winne 1995). of variance need examining: What do learners
Findings from the psychology of the way already know and access over the fine-grained
things are will become better understood as we course of a learning session? How do learners
advance the psychology of how learners make self-regulate learning across sessions to adapt
things. This will involve learning more about in service of achieving their goals? Richer in-
standards that learners use to metacognitively terpretations will need to be grounded on fine-
monitor, the nature of monitoring per se, how grained trace data that fill in gaps about pro-
learners characterize a profile of features gen- cesses in learning, specifically: Which heuristics
erated by monitoring, and how potential ac- for learning do learners consider, choose, apply,
tions are searched for and matched to a profile and adapt? How do those processes by which
generated by monitoring that sets a stage for learners make things and self-regulate unfold
metacognitive control. Metaphorically, because under constraints of how things are?
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this
review.
LITERATURE CITED
Ainley M, Hidi S, Berndorff D. 2002. Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their
relationship. J. Educ. Psychol. 94:545–61
Aleven V, Stahl E, Schworm S, Fischer F, Wallace R. 2003. Help seeking and help design in interactive learning
environments. Rev. Educ. Res. 73:277–320
Allport GW. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt
Baddeley AD, Hitch GJ. 1974. Working memory. In Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation Vol. 8, ed.
GA Bower, pp. 47–89. New York: Academic
Bandura A. 2000. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9:75–78
Blatchford P, Moriarty V, Edmonds S, Martin C. 2002. Relationships between class size and teaching:
a multimethod analysis of English infant schools. Am. Educ. Res. J. 39:101–32
Blatchford P, Russell A, Bassett P, Brown P, Martin C. 2007. The effect of class size on the teaching of pupils
aged 7–11 years. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 18:147–72
Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, van Heerden J. 2003. The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychol. Rev.
110:203–19
672 Winne · Nesbit

Bräten I, Strømsøä HI, Samuelstuen MS. 2008. Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-
specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.
33:814–40
Bruner JS. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educ. Rev. 31:21–32
Carpenter TP, Franke ML, Jacobs VR, Fennema E, Empson SB. 1998. A longitudinal study of invention and
understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. J. Res. Math. Educ. 29:3–20
Cassidy S. 2004. Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures. Educ. Psychol. 24:419–44
Chiu MM, Xihua Z. 2008. Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: analyses of students
in 41 countries. Learn. Instruc. 18:321–36
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. 2004. Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning. A Systematic
and Critical Review. (Report No. 041543.) London: Learning Skills Res. Cent.
Cooper H. 1989. Homework. New York: Longman
Cooper H, Robinson JC, Patall EA. 2006. Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of
research, 1987–2003. Rev. Educ. Res. 76:1–62
Corno L. 1996. Homework is a complicated thing. Educ. Researcher 25:27–30
Covington MV. 2000. Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: an integrative review. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 51:171–200
Dahl TI, Bals M, Turi AL. 2005. Are students’ beliefs about knowledge and learning associated with their
reported use of learning strategies? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 75:257–73

Dai DY, Wang X. 2007. The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest
development. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 32:332–47
Dansereau DF. 1985. Learning strategy research. In Thinking and Learning Skills. Vol. 1: Relating Instruction to
Research, ed. JW Segal, SF Chipman, R Glaser, pp. 209–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Dansereau DF, Collins KW, McDonald BA, Holley DD, Garland J, et al. 1979. Development and evaluation
of a learning strategy training program. J. Educ. Psychol. 71:64–73
Davey B, McBride S. 1986. Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol.
78:256–62
Dean D, Kuhn D. 2007. Direct instruction vs discovery: the long view. Sci. Educ. 91:384–97
De Lisi R. 2002. From marbles to instant messenger: implications of Piaget’s ideas about peer learning. Theory
Pract. 41:5–12
Denissen JJA, Zarrett NR, Eccles JS. 2007. I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: longitudinal couplings
between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Dev. 78:430–47
Dewey J. 1913. Interest and Effort in Education. Boston: Riverside
Dignath D, Buettner G, Langfeldt H-P. 2008. How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning
strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Ed. Res. Rev. 3:101–29
Dowson M, McInerney DM, Nelson GF. 2006. An investigation of the effects of school context and sex
differences on students’ motivational goal orientations. Educ. Psychol. 26:781–811
Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Middleton EL. 2005. What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judg-
ments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. J. Mem. Lang. 52:551–
65
Dweck CS, Master A. 2008. Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In Motivation and Self-Regulated
Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications, ed. DH Schunk, BJ Zimmerman, pp. 31–51. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum
Epstein JL, Van Voorhis FL. 2001. More than minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol.
36:181–93
Fan X, Chen M. 2001. Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educ.
Psychol. Rev. 13:1–22
Farkas G, Beron K. 2004. The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: differences by class and
race. Soc. Sci. Res. 33:464–97
Fawcett LM, Garton AF. 2005. The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. Br. J.
Educ. Psychol. 75:157–69
Feldmann SC, Martinez-Pons M. 1995. The relationship of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and collaborative
verbal behavior with grades—preliminary findings. Psychol. Rep. 77:971–78

Finn JD, Achilles CM. 1999. Tennessee’s class size study: findings, implications, misconceptions. Educ. Eval.
Pol. Anal. 21:97–109
Finn JD, Pannozzo GM, Achilles CM. 2003. The “why’s” of class size: student behavior in small classes. Rev.
Educ. Res. 73:321–68
Flavell JH. 1971. First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the development of? Hum. Dev.
14:272–78
Foster MA, Lambert R, Abbott-Shim M, McCarty F, Franze S. 2005. A model of home learning environment
and social risk factors in relation to children’s emergent literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Res.
Q. 20:13–36
Gabriele AJ. 2007. The influence of achievement goals on the constructive activity of low achievers during
collaborative problem solving. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 77:121–41
Gano-Overway LA. 2008. The effect of goal involvement on self-regulatory processes. Int. J. Sport Exerc.
Psychol. 6:132–56
Garton AF, Pratt C. 2001. Peer assistance in children’s problem solving. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 19:307–18
Ginsburg-Block MD, Rohrbeck CA, Fantuzzo JW. 2006. A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and
behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 98:732–49
Goddard YL, Sendi C. 2008. Effects of self-monitoring on the narrative and expository writing of four fourth-
grade students with learning disabilities. Read. Writ. Q. 24:408–33

Hacker DJ, Bol L, Bahbahani K. 2008. Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of
incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacogn. Learn. 3:101–21
Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J, Graesser AC, eds. 2009. Handbook of Metacognition in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Hadwin AF, Winne PH, Stockley DB, Nesbit JC, Woszczyna C. 2001. Context moderates students’ self-
reports about how they study. J. Educ. Psychol. 93:477–87
Haller EP, Child DA, Walberg HJ. 1988. Can comprehension be taught? Educ. Res. 17(9):5–8
Hammer D. 1997. Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cogn. Instruc. 15:485–529
Hart JT. 1965. Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. J. Educ. Psychol. 56:208–16
Hattie J, Biggs J, Purdie N. 1996. Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis.
Rev. Educ. Res. 66:99–136
Hulleman CS, Durik AM, Schweigert SB, Harackiewicz JM. 2008. Task values, achievement goals, and interest:
an integrative analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 100:398–416
Hulshof CD, de Jong T. 2006. Using just-in-time information to support scientific discovery learning in a
computer-based simulation. Interact. Learn. Environ. 14:79–94
Jamieson-Noel D, Winne PH. 2003. Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations
of students’ studying and achievement. Z. Pädagog. Psychol./German J. Educ. Psychol. 17:159–71
Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 1991. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic
Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Kelly GA. 1955. Psychology of Personal Constructs. Vol. 1: A Theory of Personality. New York: Norton
Kendler HH, Kendler TS, Ward JW. 1972. An ontogenetic analysis of optional intradimensional and extradi-
mensional shifts. J. Exp. Psychol. 95:102–9
King A. 1994. Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of teaching children how to question
and how to explain. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31:338–68
King A. 2002. Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Pract. 41:33–39
King A, Staffieri A, Adelgais A. 1998. Mutual peer tutoring: effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold
peer learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 90:134–52
Kintsch W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model.
Psychol. Rev. 95:163–82
Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an anal-
ysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.
Klahr D, Nigam M. 2004. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct
instruction and discovery learning. Psychol. Sci. 15:661–67
674 Winne · Nesbit

Kolic-Vehovec S, Roncevic B, Bajšanski I. 2008. Motivational components of self-regulated learning and
reading strategy use in university students: the role of goal orientation patterns. Learn. Individ. Diff.
18:108–13
Konstantopoulos S. 2008. Do small classes reduce the achievement gap between low and high achievers?
Evidence from project STAR. Elem. Sch. J. 108:275–91
Koriat A. 1993. How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychol.
Rev. 100:609–39
Koriat A, Sheffer L, Ma’ayan H. 2002. Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: judgments of
learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 131:147–62
Kouzma NM, Kennedy GA. 2002. Homework, stress and mood disturbance in senior high school students.
Psychol. Rep. 91:193–98
Kozhevnikov M. 2007. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework
of cognitive style. Psychol. Bull. 133:464–81
Krapp A. 2005. Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learn.
Instruc. 15:381–95
Krätzig GP, Arbuthnott KD. 2006. Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: a test of the hypothesis.
J. Educ. Psychol. 98:238–46
Krueger AB. 1999. Experimental estimates of education production functions. Q. J. Econ. 114:497–532
Lawless KA, Kulikowich JM. 2006. Domain knowledge and individual interest: the effects of academic level
and specialization in statistics and psychology. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 31:30–43
Lehman S, Schraw G, McCrudden MT, Hartley K. 2007. Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific
text. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 32:569–87
Maki RH. 1998. Test predictions over text material. In Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, ed.
DJ Hacker, J Dunlosky, AC Graesser, pp. 117–44. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Martin J. 2004. Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educ. Psychol. 39:135–45
Mason L, Scirica F. 2006. Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by episte-
mological understanding. Learn. Instruc. 16:492–509
Mayer RE. 2004. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided
methods of instruction. Am. Psychol. 59:14–19
Mayer RE. 2005. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning. In The Cambridge
Handbook of Multimedia Learning, ed. RE Mayer, pp. 183–200. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
McDermott RP, Goldman SV, Varenne H. 1984. When school goes home: some problems in the organization
of homework. Teach. Coll. Rec. 85:391–409
Meece JL, Anderman EM, Anderman LH. 2006. Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic
achievement. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:487–503
Messick S. 1970. The criterion problem in the evaluation of instruction: assessing possible, not just intended
outcomes. In The Evaluation of Instruction: Issues and Problems, ed. MC Wittrock, DE Wiley, pp. 188–89.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Messick S. 1984. The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promise in educational practice. Educ. Psychol.
19:59–74
Miki K, Yamauchi H. 2005. Perceptions of classroom goal structures, personal achievement goal orientations,
and learning strategies. Jpn. J. Psychol. 76:260–68
Milesi C, Gamoran A. 2006. Effects of class size and instruction on kindergarten achievement. Educ. Eval. Pol.
Anal. 28:287–313
Miyake A, Witzki AH, Emerson MJ. 2001. Field dependence-independence from a working memory perspec-
tive: a dual-task investigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory 9:445–57
Mosteller F. 1995. The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. Future Children 5:113–27
Muis KR. 2007. The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 42:173–90
Muis KR. 2008. Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: examining relations in the context of mathe-
matics problem solving. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33:177–208
Murphy FC, Wilde G, Ogden N, Barnard PJ, Calder AJ. 2009. Assessing the automaticity of moral processing:
efficient coding of moral information during narrative comprehension. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62:41–49

Nelson TO, Dunlosky J. 1991. When people’s judgments of learning ( JOLs) are extremely accurate at pre-
dicting subsequent recall: the “delayed-JOL effect.” Psychol. Sci. 2:267–70
Ngu BH, Mit E, Shahbodin F, Tuovinen J. 2009. Chemistry problem solving instruction: a comparison of
three computer-based formats for learning from hierarchical network problem representations. Instr. Sci.
37:21–42
Nye B, Hedges LV, Konstantopoulos S. 2004. Do minorities experience larger lasting benefits from small
classes? J. Educ. Res. 98:94–100
Oakhill J, Hartt J, Samols D. 2005. Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and
poor comprehenders. Read. Writ. 18:657–86
O’Donnell AM. 2006. The role of peers and group learning. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, ed.
PA Alexander, PH Winne, pp. 781–802. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. 2003a. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments.
Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PWM. 2003b. Cognitive load measurement as a means to
advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38:63–71
Palincsar AS, Herrenkohl L. 2002. Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory Pract. 41:26–32
Park H. 2008. Home literacy environments and children’s reading performance: A comparative study of 25
countries. Educ. Res. Eval. 14:489–505
Perry WG Jr. 1970. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston
Piaget J. 1970. Piaget’s theory. In Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, ed. P Mussen, Vol. 1, pp. 703–72.
New York: Wiley
Pieschl S, Stahl E, Bromme R. 2008. Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext.
Metacogn. Learn. 3:17–27
Pintrich PR. 2000. Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement.
J. Educ. Psychol. 92:544–55
Pintrich PR, Conley AM, Kempler TM. 2003. Current issues in achievement goal theory and research.
Int. J. Educ. Res. 39:319–37
Pintrich PR, DeGroot E. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82:33–40
Pittenger DJ. 1993. The utility of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Rev. Educ. Res. 63:467–88
Purhonen M, Valkonen-Korhonen M, Lehtonen J. 2008. The impact of stimulus type and early motherhood
on attentional processing. Dev. Psychobiol. 50:600–7
Randler C, Bogner FX. 2007. Pupils’ interest before, during, and after a curriculum dealing with ecological
topics and its relationship with achievement. Educ. Res. Eval. 13:463–78
Renninger KA, Hidi S, Krapp A, eds. 1992. The Role of Interest in Learning and Development. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Reyes ML, Lee JD. 2008. Effects of cognitive load presence and duration on driver eye movements and event
detection performance. Transportation Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 11:391–402
Rittle-Johnson B. 2006. Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Dev. 77:1–
15
Roediger HL. 2008. Relativity of remembering: why the laws of memory vanished. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:225–
54
Rohrbeck CA, Ginsburg-Block MD, Fantuzzo JW, Miller TR. 2003. Peer-assisted learning interventions with
elementary school students: a meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Psychol. 95:240–57
Rohrer D, Pashler H. 2007. Increasing retention without increasing study time. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16:183–
86
Rosenshine B. 1987. Explicit teaching and teacher training. J. Teacher Educ. 38(3):34–36
Rosenshine B, Meister C. 1994. Reciprocal teaching: a review of the research. Rev. Educ. Res. 64:479–530
Ryan MP. 1984. Monitoring text comprehension: individual differences in epistemological standards. J. Educ.
Psychol. 76:248–58
Salomon G, Perkins DN. 1989. Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon.
676 Winne · Nesbit

Schommer M. 1990. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol.
82:498–504
Senko C, Miles KM. 2008. Pursuing their own learning agenda: how mastery-oriented students jeopardize
their class performance. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33:561–83
Siegler RS, Crowley K. 1991. The microgenetic method: a direct means for studying cognitive development.
Am. Psychol. 46:606–20
Sirin SR. 2005. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research.
Rev. Educ. Res. 75:417–53
Slavin RE. 1996. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know.
Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 21:43–69
Smith ML, Glass GV. 1980. Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to attitudes and
instruction. Am. Educ. Res. J. 17:419–33
Stathopoulou C, Vosniadou S. 2007. Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs
and physics understanding. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 32:255–81
Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Zhang LF. 2008. Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and
assessment. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:486–506

Swanson HL, Hoskyn M. 1998. Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities:
a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 68:277–321

Sweller J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12:257–85
Thiede KW, Anderson MCM. 2003. Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemp. Educ.
Psychol. 28:129–60
Thiede KW, Anderson MCM, Therriault D. 2003. Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of
texts. J. Educ. Psychol. 95:66–73
Thiede KW, Dunlosky J, Griffin TD, Wiley J. 2005. Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on meta-
comprehension accuracy. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31:1267–80
Thomas AK, McDaniel MA. 2007. Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: dramatic effects
of encoding–retrieval interactions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14:212–18
Thorndike EL. 1903. Educational Psychology. New York: Lemcke & Buechner
Toney LP, Kelley ML, Lanclos NF. 2003. Self- and parental monitoring of homework in adolescents: compar-
ative effects on parents’ perceptions of homework behavior problems. Child Fam. Behav. Ther. 25:35–51
Trautwein U. 2007. The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, home-
work frequency, and homework effort. Learn. Instruc. 17:372–88
Trautwein U, Schnyder I, Niggli A, Neumann M, Ludtke O. 2009. Chameleon effects in homework research:
the homework-achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen.
Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34:77–88
Tudge JR. 1992. Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: a Vygotskian analysis. Child Dev. 63:1364–
79
Tuovinen JE, Sweller J. 1999. A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked
examples. J. Educ. Psychol. 91:334–41
Veenman MV, Elshout JJ, Busato VV. 1994. Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based sim-
ulations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 10:93–106
Verschaffel L, de Corte E, Lasure S, Van Vaerenbergh G, Bogaerts H, Ratinckx E. 1999. Learning to solve
mathematical application problems: a design experiment with fifth graders. Math. Think. Learn. 1:195–229
Vrugt A, Oort FJ. 2008. Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: path-
ways to achievement. Metacogn. Learn. 3:123–46
Vygotsky LS. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Walczyk JJ, Raska LJ. 1992. The relation between low- and high-level reading skills in children. Contemp.
Watkins D. 2001. Correlates of approaches to learning: a cross-cultural meta-analysis. In Perspectives on Think-
ing, Learning and Cognitive Styles, ed. RJ Sternberg, LF Zhang, pp. 165–95. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Webb NM, Franke ML, Ing M, Chan A, De T, et al. 2008. The role of teacher instructional practices in
student collaboration. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33:360–81

Webb NM, Mastergeorge AM. 2003. The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-
directed small groups. Cogn. Instruc. 21:361–428
Webb NM, Palincsar AS. 1996. Group processes in the classroom. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, ed.
DC Berliner, RC Calfee, pp. 841–73. New York: Prentice Hall
White KR. 1982. The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychol. Bull. 91:461–
81
Winne PH. 1982. Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional
effects. Instruc. Sci. 11:13–28
Winne PH. 1983. Distortions of construct validity in multiple regression analysis. Canadian J. Behav. Sci.
15:187–202
Winne PH. 1995. Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 30:173–87
Winne PH. 2006. How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform.
Winne PH, Jamieson-Noel DL. 2002. Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and
achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27:551–72
Winne PH, Nesbit JC. 2009. Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In Handbook of Metacog-
nition in Education, ed. DJ Hacker, J Dunlosky, AC Graesser, pp. 259–77. New York: Routledge
Zhang LF, Sternberg RJ. 2001. Thinking styles across cultures: their relationships with student learning. In
Perspectives on Thinking, Learning and Cognitive Styles, ed. RJ Sternberg, LF Zhang, pp. 197–226. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum
Zhou M. 2008. Operationalizing and Tracing Goal Orientation and Learning Strategy. Unpubl. doctoral dissert.,
Simon Fraser Univ.
Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A. 2005. Homework practices and academic achievement: the mediating role of
self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30:397–417
678 Winne · Nesbit

Annual Review of
Psychology
Volume 61, 2010 Contents
Prefatory
Love in the Fourth Dimension

Ellen Berscheid ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 1
Brain Mechanisms and Behavior

The Role of the Hippocampus in Prediction and Imagination
Randy L. Buckner ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣27
Learning and Memory Plasticity; Neuroscience of Learning
Hippocampal-Neocortical Interactions in Memory Formation,
Consolidation, and Reconsolidation
Szu-Han Wang and Richard G.M. Morris ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣49
Stress and Neuroendocrinology
Stress Hormone Regulation: Biological Role
and Translation Into Therapy
Florian Holsboer and Marcus Ising ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣81
Developmental Psychobiology
Structural Plasticity and Hippocampal Function
Benedetta Leuner and Elizabeth Gould ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 111
Cognitive Neuroscience
A Bridge Over Troubled Water: Reconsolidation as a Link Between
Cognitive and Neuroscientific Memory Research Traditions
Oliver Hardt, Einar Örn Einarsson, and Karim Nader ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 141
Cognitive Neural Prosthetics
Richard A. Andersen, Eun Jung Hwang, and Grant H. Mulliken ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 169
Speech Perception
Speech Perception and Language Acquisition in the First Year of Life
Judit Gervain and Jacques Mehler ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 191
vi
Chemical Senses (Taste and Smell)
An Odor Is Not Worth a Thousand Words: From Multidimensional
Odors to Unidimensional Odor Objects
Yaara Yeshurun and Noam Sobel ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 219
Somesthetic and Vestibular Senses
Somesthetic Senses
Mark Hollins ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 243
Basic Learning and Conditioning
Learning: From Association to Cognition
David R. Shanks ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 273

Comparative Psychology
Evolving the Capacity to Understand Actions, Intentions, and Goals

Marc Hauser and Justin Wood ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 303
Human Development: Processes
Child Maltreatment and Memory
Gail S. Goodman, Jodi A. Quas, and Christin M. Ogle ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 325
Emotional, Social, and Personality Development
Patterns of Gender Development
Carol Lynn Martin and Diane N. Ruble ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 353
Adulthood and Aging
Social and Emotional Aging
Susan T. Charles and Laura L. Carstensen ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 383
Development in Societal Context
Human Development in Societal Context
Aletha C. Huston and Alison C. Bentley ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 411
Genetics and Psychopathology
Epigenetics and the Environmental Regulation
of the Genome and Its Function
Tie-Yuan Zhang and Michael J. Meaney ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 439
Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity
Goals, Attention, and (Un)Consciousness
Ap Dijksterhuis and Henk Aarts ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 467
Contents vii
Bargaining, Negotiation, Conflict, Social Justice
Negotiation
Leigh L. Thompson, Jiunwen Wang, and Brian C. Gunia ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 491
Personality Development: Stability and Change
Personality Development: Continuity and Change Over the
Life Course
Dan P. McAdams and Bradley D. Olson ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 517
Work Motivation
Self-Regulation at Work
Robert G. Lord, James M. Diefendorff, Aaron C. Schmidt, and Rosalie J. Hall ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 543
Cognition in Organizations
Creativity
Beth A. Hennessey and Teresa M. Amabile ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 569
Work Attitudes ( Job Satisfaction, Commitment, Identification)
The Intersection of Work and Family Life: The Role of Affect
Lillian T. Eby, Charleen P. Maher, and Marcus M. Butts ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 599
Human Factors (Machine Information, Person Machine Information,
Workplace Conditions)
Cumulative Knowledge and Progress in Human Factors
Robert W. Proctor and Kim-Phuong L. Vu ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 623
Learning and Performance in Educational Settings
The Psychology of Academic Achievement
Philip H. Winne and John C. Nesbit ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 653
Personality and Coping Styles
Personality and Coping
Charles S. Carver and Jennifer Connor-Smith ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 679
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 51–61 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 705

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 51–61 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 710
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
viii Contents
ANNUAL REVIEWS
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.
New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Volume 1 • March 2014 • Online & In Print • http://orgpsych.annualreviews.org
Editor: Frederick P. Morgeson, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is devoted to publishing reviews of
the industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior literature.
Topics for review include motivation, selection, teams, training and development, leadership, job performance,
strategic HR, cross-cultural issues, work attitudes, entrepreneurship, afect and emotion, organizational change
and development, gender and diversity, statistics and research methodologies, and other emerging topics.
Complimentary online access to the irst volume will be available until March 2015.
TAble oF CoNTeNTs:
• An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving • Perspectives on Power in Organizations, Cameron Anderson,
Research Quality Before Data Collection, Herman Aguinis, Sebastien Brion
Robert J. Vandenberg • Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future
• Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach, of an Interpersonal Construct, Amy C. Edmondson, Zhike Lei
Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, • Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection,
Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel Jing Zhou, Inga J. Hoever
• Compassion at Work, Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, • Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical
Ashley E. Hardin Challenges, Peter Cappelli, JR Keller
• Constructively Managing Conlict in Organizations, • The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective,
Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, Nancy Yi Feng Chen Jefrey H. Greenhaus, Ellen Ernst Kossek
• Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant • The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy
Behavior upon Individual Employees, Sandra L. Robinson, and Competitive Advantage, Robert E. Ployhart,
Wei Wang, Christian Kiewitz Donald Hale, Jr.
• Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in • The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Michael Frese,
Organizational Socialization, Talya N. Bauer, Berrin Erdogan Michael M. Gielnik
• Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Stéphane Côté • The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness,
• Employee Voice and Silence, Elizabeth W. Morrison Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, Terence R. Mitchell
• Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang, • What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB,
Mei Ling Tan Lyman W. Porter, Benjamin Schneider
• Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace, • Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining
Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, Howard J. Klein the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century
• Pay Dispersion, Jason D. Shaw Teams, Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman,
• Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective Debra L. Shapiro
Performance at Work, Neal Schmitt • Work–Family Boundary Dynamics, Tammy D. Allen,
Eunae Cho, Laurenz L. Meier
Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.
ANNUAL REVIEWS | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (US/CAN) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]
ANNUAL REVIEWS
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.
New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org
Editor: stephen e. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
stephen M. stigler, University of Chicago
The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as
well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the ield of statistics, including theoretical statistical
underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in speciic application domains such as biostatistics
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.
Complimentary online access to the irst volume will be available until January 2015.
TAble oF CoNTeNTs:
• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg • High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications
• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, • Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
Patrick B. Ryan • Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis
• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,
David A. van Dyk Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman • Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp • Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Proile Evidence,
• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections, Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein • Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting, Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
Matthias Katzfuss • Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
Radu V. Craiu, Jefrey S. Rosenthal • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent Susan A. Murphy
Variable Models, David M. Blei • Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems: Hong Qian, S.C. Kou
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright • Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert
Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.
ANNUAL REVIEWS | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (US/CAN) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

The Psychology of Academic Achievement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Psychology of Academic Achievement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Psychology of Academic Achievement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Psychology

Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada;

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010. 61:653–78 Key Words

ing whether to prepare for an exam by massed

654 Winne · Nesbit

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 655

656 Winne · Nesbit

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 657

658 Winne · Nesbit

orientations (Vrugt & Oort 2008), epistemo-

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 659

660 Winne · Nesbit

liefs predict interactions: When information

learning in which the whole group is rewarded

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 661

662 Winne · Nesbit

cognitive research on peer-supported learn- toring and control in peer-supported learning

social-cognitive theories have no implications

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 663

664 Winne · Nesbit

children’s preparation for a knowledge-based, Trautwein and colleagues (Trautwein 2007,

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 665

garten. This suggests that school helps equalize

666 Winne · Nesbit

(2007) classified 10 major groupings. Sternberg correlation between self-reported preferences

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 667

668 Winne · Nesbit

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 669

670 Winne · Nesbit

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 671

672 Winne · Nesbit

reported use of learning strategies? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 75:257–73

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 673

grade students with learning disabilities. Read. Writ. Q. 24:408–33

674 Winne · Nesbit

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 675

676 Winne · Nesbit

assessment. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:486–506

a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 68:277–321

www.annualreviews.org • The Psychology of Academic Achievement 677

678 Winne · Nesbit

Volume 61, 2010 Contents

Love in the Fourth Dimension

Brain Mechanisms and Behavior

Evolving the Capacity to Understand Actions, Intentions, and Goals

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 51–61 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 705

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

New From Annual Reviews:

ANNUAL REVIEWS | Connect With Our Experts

New From Annual Reviews:

Editor: stephen e. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

ANNUAL REVIEWS | Connect With Our Experts

You might also like