Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com Procedia
Social and
Behavioral
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2010) 000–000
Sciences
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 32 (2012) 380 – 384
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

4th International Conference of Cognitive Science (ICCS 2011)

A case study of the predicting power of cognitive, metacognitive

and motivational strategies in girl students' achievements
Masoumeh Samadia,*, Mehdi Davaiib
a
Research Institute for Education, Tehran, Iran
b
Islamic Azad University, Central Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine the power of predicting cognitive, metacognitive and motivational strategies in girl
students' achievements in a Tehran middle school. The sample contained 245 third-grade students who were selected by multiple
cluster sampling. Data were gathered with three instruments, and their validity and reliability were confirmed. These instruments
were Self-regulation in Learning Questionnaire, Motivational Strategies Questionnaire and students' average scores. Multiple
regression analysis showed that all of the strategies could anticipate the achievements, though the strongest predictors were
metacognitive strategies.
©© 2011
2011 Published byElsevier
Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 4th International Conference
Ltd.
of Cognitive Science Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: Cognitive strategies; metacognitive strategies; motivational strategies; achievement

1. Introduction

A student’s achievement is an academic variable that has been regarded as a function of many factors. One of the
most important factors in this achievement is learning strategies. Learning strategies are plan actions that facilitate
learning. They include cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies.
The term "cognitive strategies" in its simplest form is the use of cognition to solve a problem or complete a task.
Cognitive strategies are some mental processes or procedures used for accomplishing a particular cognitive goal.
Cognitive strategies are task specific and are used in cognitive processes and help a person to manipulate
information – such as note taking or asking questions through various rehearsals, elaborations and organizational
strategies (Vaidya, 1999). So, students use cognitive strategies for learning, retention and comprehension. Cognitive
strategies may also refer to procedural facilitators that help an individual achieve a particular goal (e.g.,
understanding a text) and serve to support the learner as he or she develops internal procedures that enable him/her
to perform tasks that are complex (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Cognitive strategies can increase the efficiency
and confidence of the learner in approaching a learning task, as well as his/her ability to develop a product, retain
essential information, or perform a skill. Recently, the relationship between cognitive strategies and student's
achievement has been explored in a number of studies. These studies have demonstrated that there are positive,
significant relationships between cognitive strategies and achievement in arithmetic, comprehension, problem
solving, and mathematical problem solving (Samadi, 2002; Alborzi & Samani, 2000). In addition, research shows

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000; fax:+0-000-000-0000
E-mail address: msamadi81@yahoo.com

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 4th International Conference of Cognitive Science
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.057
 Masoumeh Samadi
Authorand Mehdi
name Davaii–/ Social
/ Procedia Procedia
and- Behavioral
Social and Behavioral
Sciences 00Sciences 32 (2012) 380 – 384
(2011) 000–000 381

that cognitive strategy in teaching definitely has positive impacts on student performance (Yumasak, Sungur, &
Çakroğlu, 2007). Studies conducted on experts and novices, or proficient and less proficient students, have
demonstrated that experts in comparison with novices have used more cognitive strategies and outperformed them in
performing the task.
Another effective tool in learning is metacognitive strategies. The concept of metacognition is one of the most
important cognitive concepts that help people perform many cognitive tasks more effectively, and is often associated
with Flavell (1979). He presents metacognition within a tripartite theoretical framework. According to Flavell
(1976, 1979) "metacognition is thinking about thinking" and consists of both metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive experiences or cognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge refers to acquired knowledge about
cognitive processes, which can be used to control cognitive processes. He further divides metacognitive knowledge
into three categories: knowledge of person, task, and strategy. Metacognitive strategies are executive in nature and
used for selecting, planning, monitoring, evaluating, and regulating progresses, which control cognitive processes
and ensure that the goal has been reached (e.g., quizzing oneself to evaluate one's understanding of that text) (Najar,
1999). These strategies are managerial and their use may be linked to efficient ways of improving performance in
academic and work environments. Teachers can teach these strategies in class. In addition, these strategies can be
learned and transferred from one area to another. Several studies have shown that metacognitive strategies are a
finite set of common skills that are highly correlated to academic success (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich, 1994;
Samadi, 2008). Recent research on middle schools suggests that metacognition (i.e., self-regulated behavior) is a
strong predictor of their academic successes and facilitates their learning in different areas (e.g., mathematical
problem solving) (Samadi, 2002).
Finally, the other effective learning tool is comprised of motivational strategies. Motivational strategies are one
of the most effective strategies in learning. The concept of motivation is among the most important components of
learning in any educational environment (Maehr, 1984). Motivational strategies are energetic strategies. Motivation
is the sum of a person's behavior and expectation. Motivational processes refer to conscious or implicit regulatory
cognitive processes that guide behaviors toward the goal. A motivated person is one who integrates his/her
knowledge and beliefs with behavior. Social-cognitive learning theory defines motivation in terms of student's: a)
self-efficacy beliefs about their abilities to engage, persist, and accomplish specific tasks (Bandura, 1986); b) goal-
setting activities (Dweck, 1991); and, c) adapting help seeking (Newman, 2002). Self-efficacy beliefs provide the
foundation for human motivation, well being and personal accomplishment and powerfully influence the level of
accomplishment that one ultimately achieves (Zimmerman, 1994). Self-efficacy is associated with the use of high
cognitive and metacognitive strategies and resists doing tasks. Adapting help seeking is a motivational strategy
(Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000). Adapting help seeking mediates the relationship between academic difficulty
and successful task completion. The process of adaptive help seeking involves self-reflection and self-related
affective motivational factor. Several studies have shown that self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientation and adapting
help seeking positively relate to academic achievement. Studies have clearly shown if oriented toward learning goals
have demonstrated high levels of learning (Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Dweck (1986) and
Zimmerman (1994) contended that learning goal orientation is positively related to achievement. A review of
literature has showed that there are significant relationships between motivational strategies and academic
achievements of students (Zimmerman et al., 1992; Dweck, 1991). The present study aimed to examine simple and
mutual relationships between learning strategies (cognitive, metacognitive and motivational strategies) and
determination power of anticipation strategies on learning achievements of girl students of a Tehran middle school.

2. Method

This research is a descriptive research of correlation design that was carried out in Tehran. The target population
for the study comprised of all girl students of middle school in 1, 6 and 19 educational districts of Tehran. The study
participants were 245 third grade middle schools students that were selected by multiple cluster sampling method
from the districts. Their age ranged with a mean 13 year and 11 month and standard deviation 9 month. Data were
collected using 3 Instruments: Motivational Regulation Strategies Questionnaire (Wolters, 1998), Self-regulation in
Learning Questionnaire (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) and students' average scores in first and second
semester in year 2010 to measure achievement.
Motivational Regulation Strategies Questionnaire (Wolters, 1999) was used to measure motivational strategies.
These questionnaires have 28 five point Likert items ranging from 1 (Not at all typical of to me), to 5 (very much
typical to me). Components of these questionnaires are: self-reinforcement strategy, environment control
382 Masoumeh Samadi and Mehdi Davaii / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 32 (2012) 380 – 384
Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000

performance self-talk, interest enhancement and self-talk dominance. Reliability of this questionnaire is acquired by
Cronbach's alpha Coefficients that are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Reliability of Motivational Regulation Strategies Questionnaire

Component Items used Cronbach s alpha

Self-reinforcement strategy 7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6 0.80
Environment control 9,10,11,12,13,1,4 0.62
Interest Enhancement 15,16,17,18,19 0.54
Self- talk performance 20,21,22,23,24 0.44
Self- talk dominance 25,26,27,28 0.78

2- Self-regulation in Learning Questionnaire (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) was used for
measurement of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. This Questionnaire has 15 four point Likert items ranging
from 1 (very little of to me) to 5 (always off to me). Reliability of this Questionnaire was calculated by Cronach's
alpha (r = 0.62) that was satisfactory. Validity of this questionnaire was determined in previous research by its
correlation with students score in Mathematics and English lesson (table 2).

Table 2. Pearson correlation between Self-regulation score and GPA, final Mathematics score and final
English score

Subject score on tests r p

Correlation of Self-regulation score with GPA 0.38 0.001
Correlation of Self-regulation score with final Mathematical score 0.34 0.001
Correlation of Self-regulation score with final English score 0.30 0.001

Table 2 shows that correlation between self-regulation scores and GPA is 0.38 and it is significant at the 0.001
level and also correlation between self-regulation scores and final mathematical score is 0.34 and it is significant at
the 0.001 level. Finally, correlation between self-regulation scores and final English score is 0.3 and it is significant
at the 0.001 level. Mean average or GPA of girl students in the first and second semester in year 2010 were used in
measurement achievement.

The entire subject participants were administered the Self-regulation in Learning Questionnaire (Zimmerman &
Martinez-pons, 1986). Instruction on how to respond to the questionnaire was read to the participants. This ensures
its proper filling. Data collection was done immediately after the administeration and all the response sheets were
retrieved from the respondents. Finally, average score of the students were collected from their portfolio.

SPSS version 13 was used to compute Pearson correlations. Pearson correlation was conducted to simply
investigate the relationship between strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational) with student's academic
achievement. Multiple regressions were used to determine power of predicting students’ academic achievement by
cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies.

3. Results

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship of cognitive, metacognitive and motivational
strategies to academic achievement. There is significant correlation between learning strategies (Cognitive,
metacognitive, motivational) and achievement (table 3).

Table 3. Pearson between cognitive strategies, meta cognitive strategies, and motivational strategies

Metacognitive Motivational
Variable Cognitive strategies Achievement
strategies strategies
 Masoumeh Samadi and Mehdi Davaii / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 32 (2012) 380 – 384 383
Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000

Cognitive strategies 1
p
N 245
Metacognitive strategies 0.696 1

p 0.001
N 245 245
Motivational strategies 0.823 0.830 1

P 0.001 0.001
N 245 245 245

Achievement 0.783 0.696 0.823 1

P 0.001 0.001 0.001

N 245 245 245 245

To know the anticipation power of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies for student achievement
multiple regression analysis was used (table 4).

Table 4. The result of multiple regression achievement by cognitive, metacognitive and motivational
strategies

predictors First step Second step Third step

β t P β t P β t P
Cognitive strategies 0.39 20.38 0.0001 0.38 17.90 0.0001 0.37 16.80 0.0001

Metacognitive strategies 0.21 11.70 0.0001 0.19 10.56 0.0001

Motivational strategies 0.15 8.75 0.0001

R 0.39 0.67 0.68

R2 0.152 0.451 0.462
p 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Table 4 shows cognitive strategies can anticipate 15 percents of achievement variation (R = 0.39, R2 = 0.152, p <
0.0001). Metacognitive strategies can anticipate 30 percents of achievement variation. This means that cognitive and
metacognitive strategies altogether can anticipate 45 percents of achievement variation (R = 0.67, R2 = 0.451, p <
0.0001). Motivational strategies also anticipate 1 percent of achievement variation. All of them (cognitive,
metacognitive and motivational strategies) can anticipate 0.46 percents of achievement variation.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore relationships between learning strategies and achievement, and determine
the power of anticipating cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies for students' academic achievements.
The gained results have generated the following findings: firstly, there is a positive, significant correlation between
cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies with achievement. A similar finding is provided by Eshel and
Kohavi (2003). In their study, they acquired a significant positive correlation between self-regulated learning
strategies (i.e., cognitive, metacognitive and motivational strategies) and academic achievement. This finding is
384 Author
Masoumeh nameand
Samadi / Procedia – Social
Mehdi Davaii and Behavioral
/ Procedia - SocialSciences 00 (2011)
and Behavioral 000–000
Sciences 32 (2012) 380 – 384

parallel with the study of Cleary and Zimmerman (2004). They who found that students who are self-regulators in
learning, compared to those who are not self-regulators (or are dependent to teachers or parents) have higher
achievements. Second, cognitive, metacognitive and motivational strategies are predictors for the student's academic
achievement. The literature (e.g., Zimmerman, 1994; Schunk, 1995), supports the result that cognitive,
metacognitive and motivational strategies are significant predictors of achievement. Third, the strongest predictor is
metacognitive strategies. They increase motivational strategies and enable students to achieve more success and
enable them to manage their learning. Literature supports the result that the strongest predictor in teaching/learning
processes is metacognitive strategies (Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault, 2003). Based on the findings of the present
study, it would seem appropriate that teachers' and students' awareness of the nature and dimensions of cognitive,
metacognitive and motivational strategies be further enhanced. Teachers and students need to be provided with
opportunities to explore and broaden their views about learning strategies, especially metacognitive strategies.
Efforts can be devoted to help students develop an understanding of learning at a higher level of the hierarchy of
conceptions of learning. This can be addressed either explicitly or implicitly in the curriculum activities and
programs.

Reference
Alborzi, S., & Samani, S. (2000). Compare motivational believes and self- regulation strategies between girls and boys middle school in gifted
school Shiraz City. Journal of Social Science and Humanities Shiraz, 1, 3-18.
Bandura. A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Boekaerts, M., Pinrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self regulated and self
motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebreska symposium
on motivation (pp. 199-236). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self- regulated learning strategies, and academic achievement. Educational
Psychology, 23, 249-260.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-245). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-
911.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory
strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications
(pp. 101-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation
in education, Vol. 1: Student motivation (pp. 115-144). New York: Academic Press.
Najar, R. L. (1999). Pathways to success: Learning strategy instruction and content curriculum. HERDSA Annual International Conference,
Melbourne.
Newman, R. (2002). What do I need to do to succeed ….when I don’t understand what I'am doing? : Developmental influences on students'
adaptive help seeking. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 285-306). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Student motivation in the college classroom. In K. W. Prichard & R. McLaran Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college
teaching: Theory and applications (pp. 23-43). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Samadi, M. (2002). Metacognitive knowledge and mathematical problem solving: The role of gender and performance achievement. Advances in
Cognitive Science, 4, 42-50.
Samadi, M. (2008). Investigation the immediate and sustainable effectiveness of self- regulation strategies instruction on self regulatory strategies
and math problem solving ability. Review Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovation, 7, 79-97.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Learning goals and self-evaluation: Effects on children's cognitive skill acquisition. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
Vaidya, S. R. (1999). Metacognitive learning strategies for students with learning disabilities. Education, 120, 186–190.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self- regulated learning and college student regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224-235.
Yumuşak, N., Sungur, S., & Çakroğlu, J. (2007). Turkish high school students’ biology achievement in relation to academic self-regulation.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 53-69.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons,AuthorM.name / Procedia
(1986). – Socialofand
Development Behavioralinterview
a structured Sciences 00for(2011) 000–000
assessing student use of self-regulated learning
strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and
personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.