Enhancing Learning and Problem Solving Skills Orienting and

Learning and Instruction 9 (1999) 517–542
www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc
Enhancing learning and problem solving skills:

orienting and self-judging, two powerful and
trainable learning tools
Chris Masuia,b,*, Erik De Cortea
a
University of Leuven, Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, Vesaliusstraat 2,
B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
b
Limburg University Center, Universitaire Campus, gebouw D, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
Abstract
In this study we report on orienting and self-judging as study and problem-solving activities
or learning tools. We examine their trainability and their effect on academic performance.
These questions are part of a research project aimed at improving metacognitive knowledge
as well as affective, conative and regulation skills. A design experiment with 141 freshmen
in business economics was set up. The experimental treatment consisted of an integrated set
of instructional conditions which were operationalized in a series of sessions and practice and
transfer tasks. The results show that after the intervention students of the experimental group
had more knowledge about orienting and self-judging than the students of both control groups
and they also oriented themselves better and were more prone to self-judging when starting
a new course. Both metaknowledge and transfer behavior were positively related to academic
performance.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Higher education; Learning skills; Metacognition; Self-regulation; Design experiment;

Conation; Orienting; Self-judging; Problem solving
1. Introduction
Findings in educational psychology show that competent students and expert prob-
lem solvers master a large body of easily accessible domain-specific knowledge
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹ 32 11 268667; fax: ⫹ 32 11 268700; e-mail: chris.masui@luc.ac.be
0959-4752/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 4 7 5 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 2 - 2
518 C. Masui, E. De Corte / Learning and Instruction 9 (1999) 517–542
(Glaser, 1987; Simon, 1980); but they also dispose of general metacognitive know-
ledge and cognitive, affective, conative and metacognitive skills (Boekaerts, 1993;
Brown, 1987; De Corte, 1991; Kuhl, 1987; Perkins & Salomon, 1989; Prawat, 1989;
Schunk, 1990; Simons, 1990; Sternberg, 1998). These skills can serve as learning
tools because students can use them in diverse subject areas and for tasks of different
scope and specificity. At present, these characteristics of competent students and
problem solvers are summarized under the heading of self-regulation or self-regula-
tory ability on which we will elaborate later.
From a theoretical point of view, but also from a practical perspective, it is
important to obtain more evidence of the impact of affective, conative and metacog-
nitive skills and knowledge on expert performance in higher education. In fact, during
the last decade, this topic has received increasing attention in educational psychology
(Depreeuw, 1989; Minnaert, 1996; Van Overwalle, 1987; Veenman & Elshout, 1991;
Veenman, Elshout & Meijer, 1997; Vermunt, 1992; Volet, 1994). However, it is
even more urgent to explore and investigate the possibility of teaching affective,
conative and regulative strategies (Davidson & Sternberg, 1998; Schunk & Zimmer-
man, 1994) and to identify powerful instructional features (De Corte, Verschaffel &
Schrooten, 1990; De Corte, 1996a). Whereas contributions of this kind exist already
in different fields in higher education, for instance in computer programming (Volet,
1991; Volet, McGill & Pears, 1995), in physics (Mettes, 1987), in mathematics
(Schoenfeld, 1985), in psychology (Vermunt, 1995), and on the level of primary and
secondary education (Boekaerts, 1997; De Jong, 1992), a lot of work still needs to
be done. First, the scope has to be broadened to as many disciplines as possible. In
our investigation we worked with students in business economics and with several
content domains from their curriculum. Second, more attention should be paid to
the development of powerful instructional environments in which different kinds of
strategies can be integrated; in our study we explicitly attempted to combine affect-
ive, conative and regulative activities. Finally, there is also a need for an appropriate
research methodology to measure and understand the effects of these training pro-
grams; learning outcomes and study questionnaires can only partially fulfill this func-
tion. In addition we tried to gather objective process information.
This article presents a design experiment involving first year students in business
economics. In the first section (theoretical background and practical relevance) we
start with a description of the major choices we made; we explain how we selected
our target activities (metacognitive, affective and conative aspects of learning and
selecting metacognitive, affective and conative activities) and our design principles
(designing a powerful teaching–learning environment). In the next four sections we
focus on a part of this more comprehensive research project, namely the investigation
on orienting and self-judging. First, we describe our research questions concerning
these learning activities. Second, we focus on the design of our experiment, more
specifically on the research group, the experimental and control interventions and
the measurement instruments. Third, we report the results for each of our four
hypotheses. Finally, we formulate and discuss our conclusions.
C. Masui, E. De Corte / Learning and Instruction 9 (1999) 517–542 519
2. Theoretical background and practical relevance
2.1. Metacognitve, affective and conative aspects of learning
This research project has been inspired by the literature on metacognition as well
as on motivation, volition and emotion. With respect to metacognition a distinction
is made between the declarative (knowledge of cognition) and the procedural compo-
nent (regulation of cognition). Flavell (1987) distinguished three metacognitive
knowledge categories: knowledge about the self, knowledge about the task and stra-
tegic knowledge. Perkins (1992) stressed the different levels of awareness of this
knowledge of cognition; metacognitive knowledge can be tacit, aware, strategic or
reflective. The procedural component of metacognition is further subdivided into a
series of monitoring and control activities (Brown, 1987; Kluwe, 1987; De Jong,
1992). “Monitoring refers to the flow of information from an object-level system to
a meta-level system. By contrast, control refers to the flow of information from the
meta-level system to the object-level system” (Dunlosky, 1998, p. 368). In reviewing
the literature, Vermunt (1992) mentioned eight categories of regulative or metacogni-
tive activities: two control activities (planning and adjusting or repairing) four moni-
toring activities (process-monitoring, self-testing, diagnosing and evaluating) and two
activities which precede control (orienting and reflecting).
On the affective and conative (motivational and volitional) side we identified many
activities or processes in research on causal attribution (Van Overwalle, 1987), and
on self-regulation (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994).
Linked to Weiners’ causal attribution theory are processes such as: attributing or
indicating causes for the outcomes of the learning and problem-solving process, judg-
ing oneself while identifying internal causes, coping with emotions which follow
different attributions and generating positive expectations concerning the future. In
his action theory Kuhl (Kuhl, 1987; see also Corno, 1989) integrates control of cog-
nition and emotional, motivational and environmental control. Control of cognition
involves attention and encoding control which are related to activities such as con-
centrating and valuing. Emotion control means generating, fostering or repairing
positive feelings and reacting in a constructive way towards negative feelings. Motiv-
ation control refers to activities aimed at protecting the initial motivational choice
against competing alternatives; examples are persisting and engaging. Environmental
control refers to control of the task situation and of others (peers and teachers) in
the task setting and demands initiative, courage and assertiveness. In the view on
self-regulated learning expressed by McCombs & Marzano (1990), the importance
given to the self as an agent in the learning process is most central. Willingness to
take responsibility is the core feature of self-regulation. Two activities which are
strongly related to this sense of responsibility are self-judging and valuing. Social
cognitive theory views self-regulation as comprising three subprocesses: self-obser-
vation, self-judgment and self-reaction (Schunk, 1989). These processes interact with
one another and influence the sense of self-efficacy required to attain learning goals.
Related activities are choosing or adopting learning goals, and self-evaluation. Self-
observation refers to the willingness to become aware of one’s own behavior and
to cope with the resulting emotions. Self-judgment calls for making a choice between
alternative evaluation standards. Self-reactions can motivate oneself by creating or
maintaining positive feelings and expectations as well as giving self-rewards. In
reviewing the literature Vermunt (1992) mentions eight learning activities, which
cover most of the processes referred to in the attribution and self-regulation literature
(attributing, motivating, concentrating, judging oneself, appraising or valuing, exert-
ing effort, generating emotions and expecting) and which he describes as affective
learning activities.
In the previously mentioned literature attempts have already been made to build
connections between cognitive aspects of learning and problem solving, on the one
hand, and affective and conative components, on the other (Kuhl, 1987). In recent
years this tendency has increased. In discussing underachievement Borkowski &
Thorpe (1994) present a metacognitive model in which they integrate cognitive,
motivational, personal and situational characteristics. Mayer (1998) explains how in
different content areas problem-solving expertise includes skill (cognitive strategies),
metaskill (metacognitive strategies) and will (motivational strategies). A more pro-
found integration of different aspects of learning is developed by Boekaerts (1996
and 1997) in her six-component model of self-regulated learning. She distinguishes
between a cognitive and a motivational repertoire, each comprising three levels:
domain-specific knowledge, strategy use and goals or regulatory strategies. The third
level in the cognitive repertoire includes the so-called metacognitive skills, such as
orientation, planning, execution, monitoring, reflection and self-testing, and is la-
belled ‘cognitive regulatory strategies’. In the motivational repertoire, motivation
strategies are situated at the second level and involve appraisal processes to create
a learning intention, coping processes to alter stressors and reduce negative emotions,
prospective and retrospective attributions, effort avoidance and the use of social
resources. The third motivational component refers to motivational regulatory stra-
tegies. At this level, Boekaerts identifies three strategies which are strongly related
to Kuhl’s action control, namely creating a clear mental representation of behavioral
intentions, linking behavioral intention to a plan of action and finally monitoring
one’s behavioral intention in the face of obstacles and competing actions. The inte-
grative function of this heuristic model of self-regulation lies in the parallelism
between the cognitive and the motivational repertoire, as well as in the multiple and
reciprocal relations within and between the components in either repertoire.
Several researchers argue in favor of an integration of metacognitive, affective
and conative aspects in intervention studies on self-regulated learning and thinking
(Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994; Corno, 1993; Pressley, Van Etten, Yokio, Freebern,
and Van Meter, 1998). They also advocate that this research be conducted in a natural
context. We attempted to meet this challenge in our training study.
2.2. Selecting metacognitive, affective and conative activities
Before explaining how we selected from this multitude of regulative, cognitive

and motivational activities or learning tools, we will explain the practical significance
of our research. The practical relevance of this project lies in its potential to provide a
powerful tool for enhancing the learning and problem-solving skills or self-regulatory
expertise of students in higher education. This is especially important in the Belgian
context; indeed admission to higher education is unrestricted in nearly all domains
of study, whereas university teaching is mainly focused on acquiring a large body
of domain-specific knowledge. Little explicit and systematic attention is given to
discipline-related or general learning and thinking skills which freshmen need to
cope with the difficulties they experience when entering university (Entwistle, 1992;
Van Hout-Wolters, 1992). Learning and thinking skills, and more specifically the
improvement of knowledge and regulation of one’s own cognitive, affective and
conative processes, are our main research topics.
Taking into account the literature discussed above, as well as contextual factors
relating to entrance to higher education, we selected four metacognitive or regulative
processes as the focus of our intervention program. The student activities we wanted
to influence were orienting, planning, self-testing and reflecting. In general, orienting
and planning precede the other regulatory activities. Orienting is preparing one’s
learning or problem-solving process by examining the givens or the characteristics
of the learning or problem-solving task, by thinking of possible and desirable goals
and cognitive activities, and by inspecting prior knowledge, interest, capacities and
contextual factors. Planning is taking a series of decisions on how to approach the
learning or problem-solving process based on the information gathered through orien-
tation. Self-testing is checking whether intermediate outcomes match the require-
ments of the learning or problem-solving task. Because in any situation it is important
to identify the problem or the learning task, to design a plan of action and to evaluate
goal attainment, it seems correct to focus on orienting, planning and self-testing. The
fourth activity, reflecting, is thinking about what happened during learning and prob-
lem solving as well as thinking about the factors that influenced the process and
the outcome. Reflection is a fundamental feature of self-regulation, and a necessary
condition for achieving conscious regulation (Brown, 1987) and expansion of the
explicit metacognitive knowledge body. In addition, reflection based on the conscious
verbalization of learning and thinking strategies is a tool to reach transfer. Based on
mindful abstraction, Perkins & Salomon (1989) have called reflection the “high road
to transfer”. When choosing these four regulatory activities, we also took into
account the specific research context: the entrance year of college. There is a large
difference between high school and university education. The amount of information
that freshmen have to process is more extensive and the assignments are much more
difficult and complex. At the same time, however, the external monitoring and regu-
lation of the learning process is considerably reduced. Therefore, there is a need to
support first-year students in order to enable them make the transition from secondary
school to university more smoothly. The present study started from the standpoint
that this can be done by helping students to orient themselves thoroughly, to make
a plan of action, to check whether they will meet the examination standards and to
reflect upon ways to improve their study behavior. Our choice of these four activities
is also supported by empirical evidence. De Jong (1992) highlighted the deleterious
consequences for high school students who did not orient themselves in their learning
tasks and did not prepare a plan of action. This was especially the case when their
monitoring, self-testing and repairing skills were inadequate. Veenman & Elshout
(1991) identified some aspects of students’ working methods that are strong predic-
tors of novice learning, independent of intellectual aptitude, namely ability to orient
on a problem, work in a systematic and orderly way, elaborate on experiences and
evaluate during the problem-solving process. Schunk (1990) found that difficult tasks
increase effort investment and that proximal goals are more motivating than distant
goals. Orienting and planning can boost effort investment and motivation, because
orienting illuminates the difficulty of a task and planning brings distant goals nearby.
Schoenfeld (1985) demonstrated convincingly how frequently occurring mistakes
often are caused by a lack of orienting and planning: weaker students made decisions
too quickly and did not plan how long they would pursue a chosen direction when
solving a geometry problem. Finally, our choice of regulatory strategies overlaps
greatly with the third component in Boekaerts (1996 and 1997) six component model
of self-regulated learning and amounts to four of the eight activities enumerated by
Vermunt (1992).
Each of these four metacognitive regulation activities can be matched to several
affective and conative activities. All the previously mentioned volitional, motiv-
ational and emotional processes are strongly applicable to the situation of freshmen.
Since space does not permit a full description of this application, we will restrict
ourselves to a few examples. Confronted with numerous set learning goals, a student
has to compare them with his personal goals, learning orientation and values. Both
choosing and adopting learning goals require valuing. To reduce the failure rate in
the first year of higher education, it is imperative that students be able to generate
positive feelings and achieve a useful sense of self-efficacy. Positive expectations
for the future, especially after a failure, call for a certain type of causal attribution.
One needs to look for controllable variables like effort and learning strategies.
Because external monitoring is considerably reduced, students have to be prepared
to observe and judge themselves, and have to overcome mechanisms of self-defense
in evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. It seemed quite impossible to select
affective and conative activities on the basis of their impact on early academic suc-
cess. Therefore we made a pragmatic choice. We selected four activities that are
clearly related to one of the previously determined regulatory activities, without
excluding a multitude of other relations. We combined orienting with self-judging,
planning with valuing, self-testing with coping with emotions and reflecting with
attributing. Orienting activities provide an opportunity to evaluate one’s own charac-
teristics and competencies as a learner or problem solver, including prior knowledge
and attitudes. This self-judging activity is necessary in order to arrive at an accurate
appraisal of the efforts needed to accomplish the learning or problem-solving task
successfully. The design of a plan of action is a starting point in taking responsibility
for one’s own learning process. It is directly related to valuing or ascribing a personal
value to a learning or problem-solving task. Valuing influences decisions concerning
the process one wishes to engage in as well as decisions concerning effort investment.
Self-testing generates all kinds of feelings. Therefore, the activity of coping with
emotions is useful for survival. It implies the ability to foster or recover positive
feelings and to react in a constructive way towards negative feelings. The process
of reflecting or thinking about the factors that influenced the learning and problem-
solving process involves causal attribution. Reflecting provides an opportunity to
internalize the locus of control. Our choice of non-cognitive activities is also sup-
ported by prior research. Van Overwalle (1987) demonstrated the effectiveness of
attributional techniques in a remedial program for freshmen who failed in their first
examination. In summarizing self-regulation research, Schunk & Zimmerman (1994)
conclude that research strongly supports the assumption that self-evaluation or self-
judgment is a critical component of self-regulation. With Schunk, Boekaerts (1997)
argues the importance of helping students to mentally represent learning goals and
re-define them in terms of their own short-term and long-term perspectives. This
goal-setting, whether it be adoption of set goals or selection of self-defined goals,
implicates valuing. Both Boekaerts theory (1993) on the alternation between learning
intention and coping intention and Kuhl’s action control theory (1987) stress the
importance of coping with emotions or emotional control.
2.3. Designing a powerful teaching–learning environment
The present study is part of a more comprehensive project aiming at the design
and evaluation of a powerful learning environment to enhance learning and problem-
solving skills in university students. In the following paragraphs we describe and
explain the principles which guided our attempt. In the first place, the design of the
experimental intervention was guided by research-based characteristics of effective
learning and instruction or by what is called an educational learning theory or theory
of learning from instruction (De Corte, 1998). We tried to integrate the active, cumu-
lative, constructive, goal-oriented and self-regulatory character of learning (Elen,
1992; Vermunt, 1992) in the experimental intervention. We also took into account
that productive learning is interactive and situated (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989;
De Corte, 1996b), promotes transfer (Prawat, 1989), can be considered as a problem-
solving activity (Voss, 1987) and differs among individuals (De Corte, 1996a). Next,
we used learner- and instruction-related design parameters. The learner-related design
parameters were metacognitive knowledge and cognitive, affective, conative and
regulative skills. The instruction-related design parameters were learning goals, con-
tent, support, and evaluation. Finally we took into account the academic research
context, namely the first year in business economics at a Flemish university. Con-
cerning this context, we had to consider specific instructional features such as the
selective situation, the variety of disciplines in the curriculum and the rather moderate
amount of support.
In an attempt to cope with all these variables, the design of the intervention was
based on an integrated set of instructional principles. (1) Embed acquisition of knowl-
edge and skills in the real study context, i.e. the selected activities had to be taught
in the context in which students had to apply them. This was realized by using
different courses from the first year curriculum and by working mostly during pre-
arranged contact hours. This kind of situatedness was also intended to promote trans-
fer (De Corte, Verschaffel & Schrooten, 1991; Simons, 1990). (2) Take into account
the study orientation of the students and their need to experience the usefulness
of the learning and study tasks one offered them. Therefore, it was necessary to
explain how each part of the intervention could be linked to students personal goals
and learning orientation. Providing this information is a condition for promoting
transfer (Prawat, 1989) and effort investment (Perkins, 1992). (3) Sequence teaching
methods and learning tasks and relate them to a time perspective. Sequencing is
typical of two dimensions of cognitive apprenticeship (De Corte, 1996a) and fits the
cumulative, constructive, goal-oriented and self-regulated character of learning. To
sequence teaching methods we had to model, coach, scaffold, articulate, reflect and
explore. To sequence learning tasks we had to increase their complexity and their
diversity over time. The aim was to realize constructive frictions by creating chal-
lenging learning tasks and by continuously capitalizing on the use of already acquired
learning and thinking skills (Vermunt, 1996). (4) Use a variety of forms of organi-
zation or social interaction. This principle partly overlaps with the previous one
because sequencing of teaching methods includes the use of a variety of working
methods. By alternating demonstration, individual work, working in pairs, working
in small groups, class discussion and many kinds of homework we tried to create a
stimulating social environment and to meet the constructive, collaborative and prob-
lem-solving character of learning. (5) Take into account informal prior knowledge
and large individual differences between students. This condition serves most
characteristics of learning but especially the cumulative and the active one. By using
a variety of teaching methods (third principle) and social settings (fourth principle)
we could meet informal prior knowledge and individual differences and urge students
to be active. (6) Learning and thinking processes should be verbalized and reflected
upon. These activities correspond to articulation and reflection in cognitive appren-
ticeship. We mention them as a sixth principle because we wanted to give them a
prominent place in the intervention. Techniques for verbalizing are thinking aloud,
writing while thinking, explaining and oral or written retrospection (Masui, Borrem-
ans, Van Damme & Vandenberghe, 1986; Dominowski, 1998). Verbalization is a
pre-eminent method of becoming aware of meta(cognitive), affective and conative
aspects of learning. This awareness reveals the problem-solving character of learning
and thinking and facilitates reflection and transfer (Prawat, 1989). Reflecting is one
of the four regulatory skills we wanted to promote because it is fundamental to
achieve a conscious regulation of learning and thinking. (7) Create opportunities to
practice and transfer learned activities to new content domains. Mindful abstraction
is only one road to transfer. Because transfer is always difficult to achieve we had
to promote it in different ways. This implied that students got plenty of exercises
in content domains other than the initial one.
This framework of complex and mutually dependent principles was implemented
in a series of 10 sessions of ninety minutes each, and in a number of exercises aimed
at practising and transferring knowledge and skills. The major disciplines involved
were macro-economics and cost-accounting. For the transfer exercises we made use
of ten other disciplines. The most important among these were history and sociology.
Sessions and homework were spread over a period of seven months.
3. Research questions and hypotheses
In the rest of this article we will focus on only two of the eight activities we
wanted to improve, namely orienting as the first regulatory activity in a cycle of
learning and problem solving, and self-judging as its conative counterpart.
An experimental design with one experimental group and two control groups was
set up. Before explaining this design in more detail, we will give a brief overview
of the hypotheses we wanted to test. In the first section of this article we argued the
choice of orienting and self-judging as powerful learning tools, and assumed their
trainability by implementing a series of design principles.
The first hypothesis concerns metaknowledge of these activities or the declarative
component (Flavell, 1987). We suppose that after the intervention, students in the
experimental group will have a more elaborate awareness and knowledge of orienting
in a study task and self-judging than students of both control groups. We expect
their metaknowledge at least being aware, even strategic or reflective (Perkins, 1992).
Increasing metaknowledge has practical implications not merely for students’ long
term futures, but also for their academic performance. Therefore, we expect a sig-
nificant positive relation between metaknowledge and academic performance. More
specifically, we suppose that students who know more about orienting in study tasks
and self-judging achieve better overall study results than those who know less
(second hypothesis).
The experimental training should not only produce knowledge differences between
the experimental and control students, but also differences in behavior or in the
procedural component (Kluwe, 1987). After the intervention the experimental stu-
dents should be better self-regulators than the others, and more skillful in orienting
and in self-judging (third hypothesis).
Finally, we expect a positive correlation between this behavior and academic per-
formance. This means that we hypothesize that students who orient themselves better
in a study task and who are more prone to self-judging will also obtain higher per-
formance scores for the same task (fourth hypothesis).
4. Design
4.1. Subjects
The experimental group and two control groups, each consisted of forty-seven
freshmen in business economics at a Flemish university. For the experimental group
(E) we designed an intervention embedded in the natural context of university teach-
ing. The first control group (C1) was exposed to the same amount of teaching hours
as the experimental group. The second control group (C2) was merely exposed to
the usual instructional and study-guidance support. All three groups were selected
from the total group of freshmen (N ⫽ 352) taking into account several entering
characteristics (prior academic knowledge, intelligence, cognitive study skills, attri-
bution behavior, self-judgments about executive regulation activities, and sex). It
was especially important to assess students’ actual level with respect to each of the
three distinguished components in study activities. The cognitive component was
defined in terms of the amount of mathematical training in secondary school, the
outcome of an intelligence test and the result on a study skill test or excursion as
developed by Minnaert & Janssen (1992). The affective and conative component
was partially measured by an academic self-efficacy questionnaire and an attribution
test concerning study results. The regulatory component was measured by a self-
assessment questionnaire, namely an adaptation of the Leuven Executive Regulation
Questionnaire (LERQ) for students who have just finished secondary school
(Minnaert, 1996).
4.2. The experimental and control interventions
4.2.1. Definition of orienting and self-judging

In this article we will focus on the acquisition of orienting and self-judging as
learning tools. Orienting is a regulation activity that can be used for assignments
and problems of different scope and specificity. For example, a student can orient
himself toward studying the entire course, or toward more specific tasks or problems
such as examination questions. In the literature, orienting is referred to under differ-
ent names such as problem identification, task definition or processing of givens
(Davidson & Sternberg, 1998); sometimes it is seen as part of the planning process
(0’Neil and Abedi, 1996). Based on the orientation data, a person can plan or design
his learning or problem-solving process. In this investigation we focus on orienting
toward the study of a course. This orienting is the preparation of the learning or
problem-solving process through the gathering of information about the task. The
relevant data are: the learning goals, the study load of the course, the practical organi-
zation of instruction, the study material and other instructional aids, the learning
content, the necessary study activities or the personal approach during and outside
the lessons and the examination requirements (Simons & Liew-On, 1991; Vermunt,
1992). Orienting activity depends on the availability and use of informants or sources
of information such as other students, teachers, tutors, many kinds of written material
and one’s own experience. Self-judging is a conative activity which consists of mak-
ing judgments about oneself as a learner or problem solver (Schunk, 1989; Vermunt,
1992). These judgments can also vary in specificity and can be related to diverse
tasks. For example, a student can evaluate his learning speed as being too slow in
general, or can judge his prior knowledge as insufficient to start a specific assign-
ment. In this study we restrict self-judging activity to students’ orientation toward
the study of a course, and to the general requirements to be a successful student.
4.2.2. The interventions concerning orienting and self-judging

In line with the instructional principles discussed above we designed our experi-
mental intervention. Orienting and self-judging related to the study of a course were
explicitly addressed in three of the ten experimental sessions of the total intervention,
namely during the starting session (in the second week of the academic year), during
the fourth session (in January after the first examinations), and finally during the last
session in April at the end of the intervention. In addition to these sessions and related
homework students received self-judging assignments concerning their examination
experiences and their results after the first and the second trimester (sequencing
principle). During the first session, orienting and self-judging were situated in the
intervention as a whole and their significance in relation to the study of a course
was explained. A complete set of fourteen orienting and self-judging questions con-
cerning the course of macro-economics (real context and student orientation
principle) was discussed. Examples are: “Compute the time-investment needed by
an average student according to the study guide. Is this time-budget realistic when
you take the other courses on your program into account?” and “Make a list of
personal characteristics which can be an advantage or a disadvantage in studying
macro-economics”. We made use of a variety of teaching methods and classroom
organizations (principles of variation in social settings and of differentiation between
students): demonstration, individual work, work in pairs, working in small groups
and class discussion. In the last part of this session orienting and self-judging were
related to planning and valuing, another pair of activities. In order to practice and
transfer orienting and self-judging (practice and transfer principle), students were
assigned homework in two other disciplines, namely a history course and an English
language course; by completing questionnaires, students had to report on the
accomplishment of these transfer tasks (articulation and reflection principle).
During the fourth session, orienting and self-judging were part of the preparation
of all the study work a student had to do during a certain period. Specific assignments
were offered for all nine courses in which the students were involved (sequencing
principle). These stressed study load and study approach. Examples are: “Are there
reasons for you to plan more or less study time for sociology than the time budget
you can calculate from the study guide? What are these reasons?”, and “Can you
use the experiences you gained in the history course in the first trimester to design
your approach to the sociology course?”. Students worked in groups of four. In the
first part of the session all groups had to answer questions on the same two courses.
In the second part each group could choose one or two other courses to work on
(principle of differentiation between students). At home they had to complete the
remaining questions and to report by filling out the related forms.
During the last session students were invited to reflect on all their experiences of
the past months (articulation and reflection principle). Examples of the assignments
were: “What are the main differences between secondary school and the first year
at university?”, and “Make a portrait of the ideal student of macro-economics”. At
the end of the last session, students received a booklet with a summary of the activi-
ties they were supposed to have learned during the intervention.
4.2.3. The control interventions

The first control group was submitted to the same amount of teaching hours as
the experimental group. Instead of focusing on non-cognitive activities, we let them
carry out different cognitive activities, namely, relating, structuring, analyzing,
concretizing, practicing and memorizing. During the first session for example, they
had to concretize concepts they met in the first chapters of their macro-economics
course. The fourth session was devoted to analyzing content free problems and to
looking for relations between the student’s courses. In the last session the students
of the first control group summarized a few pages of one of their courses and of a
text on the functioning of memory. After each session they got a list of activities
to be carried out on a variety of their courses and forms for reporting on the
accomplishment of these activities.
The second control group was only exposed to the usual instructional and study-
guidance support consisting of lectures, practicals, consultation hours, individual
feedback on assignments and examinations and individual and group coaching by
their tutor. This means that no special sessions were organized. These students were
only involved in the measurements before and after the intervention.
4.3. Measurement instruments and analysis
Metacognitive knowledge about orienting and self-judging was directly investi-

gated with a knowledge test on non-cognitive study activities. Transfer behavior was
assessed indirectly by asking students to produce specific orienting information, and
to engage in actual self-judging by giving them a self-judging assignment. Both
knowledge and transfer behavior were measured during assessment sessions. Aca-
demic performance was measured in terms of examination results.
4.3.1. Metacognitive knowledge of orienting and self-judging

One week after the final intervention session, a knowledge test on metacognitive,
affective and conative activities was administered. Knowledge of orienting was
investigated by means of the following question: “What do you have to know at the
start of a trimester in order to be able to organize and plan your study for a particular
course? Also mention how you can obtain that information.” For each answer we
examined how many different elements of information, informants and sources of
information were referred to. In order to categorize each element of the answer we
developed a coding scheme. The elements of information were grouped in eight
categories which relate to our definition of orienting in a study task, namely: (1) the
goal of the course, (2) the study load, (3) the practical organization of instruction,
(4) the study material and other available educational aids, (5) the learning content,
(6) the personal approach of the course during the contact hours, and (7) outside the
contact hours, (8) the examination requirements. Within each category we dis-
tinguished different elements. For example, a student could refer to study load by
mentioning several aspects such as: the study points (credit points); the weight or
the importance of the course in the curriculum; the required study time; etc. For
each element of orienting information one point was given. Each category got a
score corresponding to the number of different elements mentioned. In encoding the
answers concerning informants and sources of information we distinguished four
categories. Each type of informant or source of information was given one point.
The overall score for knowledge of the regulatory activity of orienting is the sum
of all points obtained for the eight categories of elements of information, and for
the four categories of informants and sources of information. Interscorer reliability
between two scorers on all the answers was 0.96 for the overall score and between
0.85 and 0.97 for the different subscores. Final scores were determined after deliber-
ation between both scorers.
Knowledge of self-judging was investigated by asking two questions respectively
about which personal characteristics of a student can be an advantage or a disadvan-
tage for studying or for taking exams in general or for a specific course. We also
asked the student to explain the negative or positive effect of each characteristic. To
score self-judging knowledge we combined the answers on both questions. Therefore,
we developed a coding scheme for both aspects of the question: the enumeration of
characteristics and the explanation of the effects. For each respondent we made a
list of all the different characteristics mentioned and grouped them in four categories:
cognitive characteristics (e.g. prior knowledge and analytical competence),
affective/conative characteristics (e.g. being persistent and willing to take initiative),
regulative characteristics (e.g. being careful and being reflective) and complex
characteristics (e.g. perfectionism and flexibility). When a student mentioned both
the positive and the negative version of the same characteristic (for example prior
knowledge and lack of prior knowledge) it was only counted once. In scoring the
effects, all the different effects (one or more) of each characteristic were counted.
Examples of effects are: staying in bed instead of going to the lectures, disengaging
after a failure, studying on a surface level, working together with other students,
asking for help. The overall score for knowledge of self-judging is the sum of all
characteristics and all effects mentioned by a student. Interscorer reliability between
two scorers was 0.94 for the overall score and between 0.83 and 0.94 for the different
subscores. Final scores were determined after deliberation between both scorers.
4.3.2. Orienting and self-judging behavior, measurement of transfer

During the last assessment session, we tried to find out whether students had
become more competent in learning, in the sense that they transferred the trained
study activities to a course which was not involved in the intervention, more specifi-
cally statistics. Therefore, a questionnaire containing eleven questions about study
activities and experiences in the statistics course was administered. Respondents were
encouraged to skip those questions which they could not answer spontaneously and
to elaborate their answers in sufficient detail. In this section we describe the questions
that aimed at detecting orienting and self-judging behavior. The answers to five ques-
tions were used as an indicator of orienting behavior. The first item was about study
time or study load. The next item asked for the volume of the written study material.
Thirdly, we tried to measure if the student paid attention to orienting information
offered by the statistics professors. The examination was the fourth focus of this
enquiry. Finally, we checked whether students had familiarized themselves in one
way or another with the content of the course. We developed a coding scheme on
the basis of the answers of two professors of statistics on the five questions. Criteria
underlying the specific coding rules for each question were correctness, accuracy
and elaboratedness. The overall score for orienting behavior is the sum of the scores
for each question.
To obtain an indicator of the self-judging behavior of the student we asked him
or her to provide a reasoned evaluation of his or her position with regard to the
statistics course in response to the following question: “Do you think the statistics
course will be easy or difficult for you? Explain your answer”. In analyzing the
answers we distinguished two elements: the self-judgment and the arguments pro-
vided. Concerning self-judgment we differentiated between students who gave no
answer at all, students who expected difficulties, students who expected no difficult-
ies at all, and students who gave a mixed answer. Respondents used two types of
arguments. The first involved personal or internal arguments, referring to character-
istics of the student himself. Examples are: “after the lectures I don’t understand
anything”, “I like this course”, “I have no difficulties in making the assignments”,
“I am not good in mathematics”, “a lot of students have prior knowledge which I
lack”. The second type involved general or external arguments, that apply equally
to all students. Examples are: “it is an extensive course”, “second year students tell
us this course is not easy at all”, “it is necessary to understand this material”. The
self-judging behavior was scored by counting the number of statements relating to
the self-judgment and the personal arguments.
4.3.3. Academic performance

4.3.3.1. The overall result at the end of the academic year The overall result at
the end of the academic year was used as an indicator of academic performance.
Each course was evaluated on a 20-point scale, with 10 being the pass mark. A
student’s overall result was computed as the weighed sumscore over all the courses
in the student’s study program expressed as a percentage. Each course had a weight
corresponding to the budgeted study load expressed in study points. In this study
we used the percentage of points allocated to the courses of the third trimester.
4.3.3.2. The score on the statistics course In order to study the transfer of orienting
and self-judging behavior we used students’ academic performance on the examin-
ation for the statistics course (also a score on a 20-point scale).
5. Results
5.1. Hypothesis 1: the students of the experimental group have more knowledge
about orienting in a study task and about self-judging than the students of the
control groups
Overall, students in the experimental group had significantly more knowledge of

orienting than students of the first control group (P ⫽ 0.002, one-tailed). Calculating
the effect size resulted in a so called medium effect (ds ⫽ 0.63, i.e. the means differ
by nearly two-thirds of the standard deviation) (Cohen, 1988). Experimental students
also scored better than those of the second control group (when comparing the differ-
ences for 43 pairs of students, P ⫽ 0.011, one-tailed). In this case the effect size
was small (ds ⫽ 0.36). As shown in Table 1 the mean of the experimental group
was higher for all categories of orienting than in the first control group, except for
Table 1
Knowledge of orienting: mean score and standard deviation, for each category of information and for
informants
Category of orienting E (46) C1 (41) C2 (44)
Informants Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Goal 0.20 0.45 0.15 0.36 0.11 0.32

Study load 0.93 0.83 0.63* 0.80 0.68 0.83
Organization 0.26 0.44 0.10** 0.30 0.05** 0.21
Study material 0.33 0.56 0.24 0.54 0.07*** 0.25
Course content 0.33 0.67 0.41 0.63 0.55* 0.70
Contact hours 0.37 0.61 0.15** 0.42 0.16* 0.43
Approach 0.52 0.66 0.44 0.84 0.52 0.66
Examination 1.00 0.94 1.07 1.06 1.25 0.75
Informants 3.20 1.89 2.32** 1.60 2.66* 1.45
Total 7.13 2.68 5.51*** 2.43 6.05** 2.47
*P ⬍ 0.10; **P ⬍ 0.05; ***P ⬍ 0.01 refer to the differences with the experimental group.
course content and examination. The experimental group referred significantly more
(two-tailed) to study load, practical organization, contact hours and informants and
sources of information. A comparison of the experimental group and the second
control group points in the same direction. Except for course content, examination
and study approach, the means of the experimental group were always higher. The
experimental group referred significantly more (two-tailed) to practical organization,
study material, contact hours and informants and sources of information. The second
control group refers significantly more to course content. This last difference illus-
trates the usual content or subject-matter orientation of students. The fact that the
students of the control groups refer more to the examination, though not statistically
significant, can be explained by the well-known test orientation of freshmen in a
selection situation (see also Pressley et al., 1998). While this inclination applies
also to students of the experimental group, they clearly possess more other relevant
orienting knowledge.
Overall, students within the experimental group had significantly more knowledge
of self-judging than students of the first control group (P ⫽ 0.004, one-tailed). Calcu-
lating the effect size resulted in a so-called medium effect (ds ⫽ 0.58). Experimental
students also scored better than the students of the second control group (P ⫽ 0.005,
one-tailed). In this case the effect size was small (ds ⫽ 0.41). As shown in Table
2 the experimental group mentioned significantly more (two-tailed) personal charac-
teristics and explained their effects in greater detail than the first control group.
Although in both treatment groups most attention was paid to affective and conative
student characteristics, the mean score of the experimental group was significantly
higher. When we compare the experimental group with the second control group the
results are similar. The differences for the number of personal characteristics and
for affective and conative characteristics point in the same direction, but they are
not significant. Significance is reached for the number of effects and the number of
Table 2
Knowledge of self-judging: mean score and standard deviation for knowledge of personal characteristics
(cognitive, affective/conative, regulative and complex characteristics), knowledge of the effects of these
characteristics and total self-judging knowledge
E (46) C1 (41) C2 (44)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Kn. of personal 6.02 2.19 4.98** 1.99 5.27 2.72

characteristics
Cognitive ch. 0.85 1.03 0.90 1.32 0.68 1.07
Affective/conative ch. 3.78 1.75 3.02** 1.17 3.41 1.62
Regulative ch. 0.57 0.83 0.37 0.77 0.61 0.97
Complex ch. 0.83 0.82 0.68 0.88 0.57* 0.73
Kn. of effects 7.67 4.33 5.78** 2.93 5.18 *** 3.36
Total self-judging kn. 13.70 5.47 10.76 *** 4.50 10.45 *** 5.09
complex characteristics. Most striking in the representation of the different categories

was the fact that not only the experimental students but also the control students
mentioned three to four times more affective and conative characteristics than cogni-
tive characteristics. Because of their importance to the students, we give a brief
overview of the most recorded affective and conative characteristics in alphabetic
order. A lot of students referred to one or more of them: calmness (not panicking
easily or becoming nervous), concentration, determination (withstanding
temptations), industry (as opposed to laziness), interest, persistence, self-confidence
or fear of failure, and initiative.
We may conclude that the students of the experimental group have more knowl-
edge about orienting and about self-judging than the students of both control groups.
The topics which freshmen tradionally think most of when asked for orienting infor-
mation, namely study load and content and examination, are partly replaced by and
complemented with less usual topics, such as practical organization, study material
and contact hours. Moreover, they report a more diverse assortment of informants
and sources of information. Concerning the self-judging knowledge we may conclude
that the experimental students scored better not only because they mentioned more
personal characteristics but also because they demonstrated a greater consciousness
of the impact of these characteristics on studying and taking exams. Another striking
result is the impressive importance of affective and conative characteristics not only
in the experimental but also in the control groups. Finally, we found no significant
global or category specific differences between the first and the second control group.
5.2. Hypothesis 2: there is a positive relationship between orienting and self-

judging knowledge and overall academic performance
Besides testing the hypothesis that knowledge of orienting and of self-judging can
be improved by immersing students in our powerful learning environment, we also
supposed that this knowledge would have a positive effect on students’ study results.
This effect would have to be indirect. We expected that students who know more
about orienting and self-judging would orient themselves better and would be more
involved in self-judging activities (Schraw, 1998). In turn, this behavior is presumed
to influence other study activities. In this study we restricted ourselves to testing the
indirect effect of knowledge on study results. To test hypothesis 2, we examined the
correlation between knowledge of orienting and self-judging and the overall result
in the third trimester of the academic year. Next, we calculated how much variance
in this overall percentage is explained by the entering characteristics of the students
and compared the result with the amount of criterion variance that is explained when
we add the scores for knowledge of orienting and self-judging to the regression equ-
ation.
The Pearson correlations between knowledge of orienting and knowledge of self-
judging, on the one hand, and the study result, on the other, were both significant:
for orienting r ⫽ 0.35 (N ⫽ 121, P ⫽ 0.000, one-tailed), for self-judging r ⫽ 0.20
(N ⫽ 121, P ⫽ 0.014 one-tailed). The correlation between knowledge of orienting
and knowledge of self-judging was also significant (r ⫽ 0.29, P ⫽ 0.001, one-tailed).
The linear multiple regression of the study results on the entering characteristics
equalled 0.656. In other words, these variables explain 43% of the criterion variance.
As predictor variables we entered the mathematics curriculum in secondary edu-
cation, general thinking skills, study skills, academic self-efficacy, executive regu-
lation and control of study results in secondary school. After successively introducing
knowledge of orienting and knowledge of self-judging in the regression equation,
we attained a multiple R of 0.690 and of 0.713 (instead of 0.656). Criterion variance
explained rose from 43% to 47% and to 50%. In conclusion, we can say that knowl-
edge of orienting and of self-judging matters with regard to academic performance.
This hypothesis is supported by the significant positive relations found between these
aspects of metaknowledge and the study result at the end of the academic year, and
by the fact that these variables improve the amount of criterion variance explained
by 7%.
5.3. Hypothesis 3: the students of the experimental group are more orienting and
self-judging in transfer tasks than the students of the control groups
The experimental group achieves a significantly better total score for orienting
behavior than both control groups (P ⫽ 0.011 for C1 and P ⫽ 0.027 for C2—for
44 pairs) (Table 3). The effect size is medium (ds ⫽ 0.50) between the experimental
and the first control group, and small (ds ⫽ 0.30) between the experimental group
and the second control group. This overall difference does not apply to every aspect
of orienting behavior. The number of students who did answer the question about
study time is comparable in the three research groups, but in the experimental group
more respondents mentioned an acceptable number of study hours and gave a more
or less extensive explanation. This results in a significantly higher score for the
experimental group. Concerning the volume of the study material, in all three groups
there were many students (in each case more than 40%) who had no or only a vague
Table 3
Transfer of orienting behavior: mean score and standard deviation, for each category of orienting activity,
testing of the differences between the experimental group and the two control groups
Variable E (46) C1 (41) C2 (45)
Study time 2.11 0.99 1.78* 1.01 1.62*** 0.98

Study material 1.67 1.19 1.39* 0.83 1.76 1.07
Information by teachers 1.52 1.38 1.29 1.21 1.24 1.00
Examination 1.87 1.00 1.24*** 1.14 1.38*** 1.01
Course content 0.26 0.53 0.34 0.73 0.33 0.52
Total orienting activities 7.43 2.82 6.05** 2.75 6.33** 2.71
idea of the volume of the statistics study material. Differences between means are
only significant at the .10 level between the experimental group and the first control
group. On average, students of the experimental group achieved a (non significant)
better score for the question about orienting information that is supplied by the stat-
istics teachers. In comparison with the control groups more experimental students
were capable of recalling three or more elements of information. The scores concern-
ing the question about information on the examination were rather similar in both
control groups and clearly better in the experimental group. In the latter group, there
were fewer students who did not know anything about the examination and more
students were better informed about several characteristics of the examination. The
weakest answers were given to the question about the content of the statistics classes
from the sixth week on. In each of the three groups there was only a minority of
the students who had oriented themselves with respect to the content of the latter
part of the statistics course.
Transfer of self-judging was measured by asking students to evaluate their position
with respect to the statistics course. In each research group only a minority of the
statements fell in the category of general arguments. This means that all students
gave mainly personal arguments for their self-judgment, but the experimental stu-
Table 4
Transfer of self-judging behavior: mean score and standard deviation, for general and personal arguments,
testing of the differences between the experimental group and the two control groups
Self-judging arguments E (46) C1 (41) C2 (45)
General arguments 0.39 0.49 0.29 0.51 0.44 0.69

Personal arguments 3.46 1.49 2.66*** 1.17 2.62*** 1.11
***P ⬍ 0.01 refer to the differences with the experimental group.

dents mentioned significantly more personal statements than control students (P ⫽

0.004 for C1 and P ⫽ 0.003 for C2—for 44 pairs). The effect size is medium (ds
⫽ 0.59) between the experimental and the first control group, and small (ds ⫽ 0.45)
between the experimental group and the second control group.
Summarizing the results about transfer, we may say that the experimental students
gave more evidence of orienting and self-judging with regard to the statistics course
than their peers in the control groups. The students of the experimental group gave
more justification for their estimation of the study time needed. In the fifth week of
the course, they had a better knowledge about examination requirements and they
also could give a better description of the volume of the study material (only in
comparison to the first control group). Concerning the self-judging behavior experi-
mental students formulated more personal statements to support their self-judgment.
We found no global and only one specific significant difference (concerning the
volume of the study material) between the first and the second control group.
5.4. Hypothesis 4: there is a positive relationship between orienting and self-

judging behavior and academic performance in statistics
To test this hypothesis, we examined the correlation between orienting and self-
judging behavior concerning statistics and the examination score for this course.
Next, we calculated how much variance in the statistics scores is explained by the
entering characteristics of the students and compared the result with the amount of
criterion variance explained when we add the scores for actual orienting and self-
judging behavior to the regression equation.
As predicted we found significant positive correlations between the study result
for the statistics course and several measures of orienting behavior (N ⫽ 127). Stu-
dents obtained better study results when they gave a better evaluation of the study
time needed (r ⫽ 0.32, P ⫽ 0.000, one-tailed), when they made a more accurate
description of the volume of the course material (r ⫽ 0.16, P ⫽ 0.030), and when
they knew more about the content of the course (r ⫽ 0.30, P ⫽ 0.000). We found
no significant relation between the study result and knowledge about the examination
requirements in the fifth week of the course (r ⫽ 0.10, P ⫽ 0.119) and between the
study result and orienting information students obtained from their teachers (r ⫽
0.03, P ⫽ 0.351). Regarding self-judging behavior we found a positive correlation
with the number of personal arguments, which we used as an indicator of self-judg-
ing, (r ⫽ 0.32, P ⫽ 0.000) and a negative correlation with the number of general
arguments (r ⫽ ⫺ 0.12, P ⫽ 0.080). The correlation between orienting behavior
and self-judging is also significant (r ⫽ 0.36, P ⫽ 0.000). The linear multiple
regression of the study result for statistics on the entering characteristics is 0.644.
These variables explain 41% of the criterion variance. Including orienting behavior
and self-judging behavior for statistics, multiple R rises successively to 0.715 and
0.741; the criterion variance explained increases from 41% to 51% and 55% respect-
ively. Given the positive correlations between the examination score for statistics
and measures of orienting and self-judging behavior, and the fact that these measures
provide an additional contribution to the explanation of the variance in these criterion
scores, we may conclude that the aspects of transfer behavior which we examined
are relevant to the study result.
6. Conclusions and discussion
This article reports an attempt to stimulate the integration of metacognitive, affect-

ive and conative activities in learning and problem solving. This integration, typical
of what is called self-regulated learning, has received increasing attention in edu-
cational psychology (Boekaerts, 1996; De Corte, 1996a). We focused on one example
of our integrative approach: the combined training of orienting and self-judging with
regard to the study of a course. In this final section we will first summarize the
main results of our study. Then, we will formulate methodological comments and
conclusions. Next, we will derive some instructional implications. Finally, we will
propose a few suggestions for future research.
The aim of our more comprehensive research project was to obtain more evidence
concerning the trainability and the power of an integrated set of affective, conative
and regulative activities. The hypotheses and results we have described in this article
relate to a few of these, namely orienting and self-judging at course level. Both
activities were operationalized in terms of knowledge (Flavell, 1987; Perkins, 1992)
and behavior (Brown, 1987; Kluwe, 1987; De Jong, 1992). With respect to the first
hypothesis, we may conclude that by means of the experimental intervention we were
able to improve students’ knowledge about orienting and self-judging: the differences
between the total scores of experimental and control groups are statistically signifi-
cant, and the qualitative differences indicate a favorable impact of the experimental
intervention. According to the responses on the questions about the statistics course
we received some evidence of transfer of orienting and self-judging activities from
the courses involved in the intervention toward another course which was not
included, which supports our third hypothesis. The second and the fourth research
question we tried to answer concerned the impact of orienting and self-judging
knowledge and behavior on related academic performance. We found positive corre-
lations between the overall study result and this metaknowledge, and between the
examination score for statistics and measures of orienting and self-judging behavior.
Moreover, these measures provided an additional explanation of criterion variance
and therefore support our hypotheses about the power of orienting and self-judg-
ing behavior.
To measure metaknowledge we used a rather direct method, especially with regard
to orienting. It might have been useful to construct tests capable of measuring so-
called intuitive or functional knowledge or action competence (Swaak, Van Joo-
lingen & de Jong, 1998).To examine transfer behavior we did not rely on self-report
questionnaires instead we presented students a test on specific orienting information
(information that could have been obtained by orienting behavior), and gave them
a self-judging task, taking the number of personal statements as an indicator of trans-
fer behavior.
Conceivably, larger differences between experimental and control students could

have been realized. The present results may have been influenced by the fact that
all students, (control students as well as experimental students) were encouraged to
spend a certain amount of time answering our knowledge test and to do this as well
as possible. In order to motivate all the students to make a serious effort to answer
these questions, it was explained in the introduction to the test that the answers
would be used to revise the existing manual on study methods. Respondents were
also encouraged to formulate their ideas freely without too much self-criticism.
Another explanation of the observed differences may be that the experimental stu-
dents as well as the control students had no foreknowledge of this unannounced
knowledge test and that data gathered in this way are accounts of both previous
knowledge and new knowledge produced by the research device (Romainville, 1994).
Finally, orienting and self-judging on the course level were only two of the study
and problem-solving activities we tried to influence by means of the experimental
intervention.
Probably the observed coefficients between transfer behavior and study results are
an underestimation of the real correlation between study results and transfer in a
regular learning environment. Although we did not intend to influence students by
asking them orienting information about the statistics course and by questions relat-
ing to their experiences with this course, we could not avoid doing so. At a rather
crucial moment in the third trimester, experimental and control students spent 25
minutes answering questions about their experiences with the statistics course. Inevi-
tably this reflection made students aware of what they ought to know and ought to
do and of their situation with regard to this course and stimulated them to make the
appropriate efforts. We obtained some evidence for this explanation by analyzing
the answers on the questions about other study activities such as planning and valu-
ing. This methodological comment illustrates the complexity of doing research in a
real context.
In the whole of the intervention, orienting and self-judging were operationalized
at different levels, from the course level which we describe here to the specific
problem level which is beyond the scope of this study. We did not restrict ourselves
to the more specific level, which often occurs in the study of these processes, because
we assume that the more general level of processing cannot be neglected in improv-
ing self-regulation in university students (Pressley et al., 1998).
Orienting and self-judging with regard to the study of a course were only a part
of what we aimed to address with our experimental intervention. Therefore, we did
not hypothesize in this study that students of the experimental group would obtain
better study results than students of the control groups. In other words, when students
of the experimental group achieved higher levels of academic performance than the
other students this was not merely due to a surplus of orienting and self-judging
knowledge and behavior. Concerning the whole of our design experiment we did
hypothesize a difference in study results between the experimental group and the
control groups.
The difference in effect size that we noticed concerning metaknowledge and trans-
fer behavior between both control groups cannot easily be explained because both
groups did not receive training on orienting and self-judging. Perhaps group dynam-
ics played a different role, due to the different composition of both groups; as with
the experimental group, the first control group contained students from two different
classes, whereas in the second control group students from four different classes
were involved. Although the three groups were equal on the entering characteristics,
in the first control group more students dropped out during the academic year
(compare participation in the knowledge and transfer tests, taking into account that
each group had the same initial size).
Now that we have obtained some evidence concerning the power and the train-
ability of orienting and self-judging it seems important to derive corresponding edu-
cational implications or recommendations. The first implication concerns the impor-
tance of integrating self-regulation strategy training in the real study context. This
means that students need to experience that activities such as self-judging and orient-
ing on a course level are really part of the entire range of study activities. This implies
that orienting and self-judging is integrated into their courses and that training in
these skills is conducted during pre-arranged contact hours, guided by their normal
teachers. This kind of implementation can only be fulfilled once obstacles such as
time restrictions and content orientation of the teaching staff are eliminated.
The implementation of orienting and self-judging strategies would require that
both students and teacher openly discuss all aspect of teaching and learning, includ-
ing strengths and weaknesses of the student and of the instruction method. In most
institutions of higher education such open discussion is not compatible with the
current culture and our training program can therefore only be realized gradually.
Students and teachers will have to overcome numerous inhibitions. Another instruc-
tional implication of our research is related to the study orientation of freshmen in
a selection situation. When we desire that they exchange their performance orien-
tation for a learner-competence orientation, this last has to be rewarded by a signifi-
cant positive relation with academic achievement or examination results. The most
obvious incentive can be provided by making learner-competence an explicit aca-
demic target.
In a process-oriented teaching approach aimed at improving learning and problem
solving skills, there is a need for teachers who are able to monitor and control a
wide range of instructional goals. Teachers in universities are often selected for their
expertise in a specific field. To implement powerful teaching–learning environments
we need teaching professionals who can easily switch their attention from domain-
specific content and heuristic strategies on the one hand to different student activities
(cognitive, affective, conative and regulative) on the other.
The last instructional implication we would like to formulate concerns an unexpec-
ted finding of our investigation, namely the great importance, according to the stu-
dents, of affective and conative strategies to academic success in a highly selective
situation. This finding suggests that freshmen experience more deficiencies in affect-
ive, motivational and volitional skills than in cognitive and regulative ones and points
to an urgent need for teacher-regulation in this largely neglected domain.
Finally, we would like to formulate some suggestions for future research. Although
we have mentioned several limitations of our research, our results provide substantial
justification for maintaining our focus on certain affective, conative and regulative
processes, and for our choice of instructional design principles. In future research
and in educational practice it would be of interest to explore the following questions.
In our measures of transfer behavior, the transfer required was more near–far than
far–far. In future research it would be desirable to measure other transfer effects and
also effects in the longer term. For example, it would be interesting to know if
students who have learned to orient themselves better in the study of a course are
also more competent in orienting themselves in other study tasks such as the prep-
aration of their internship or of their final dissertation. In our research we noticed
large individual differences in metaknowledge and in self-regulation behavior
between students in the same research group. How could one understand and explain
these differences? On the question about those student characteristics that have an
effect on studying and taking exams all students stressed the importance of non-
cognitive processes, more specifically volitional strategies. Do these kinds of pro-
cesses deserve as much interest as was suggested by the answers of our respondents
(see also, Corno, 1993)? A last research question we would like to raise is the follow-
ing. Would it be possible to obtain a more significant effect using our approach by
enhancing the number of sessions and implementing our experimental intervention
on a large scale and as a part of a curriculum in which cognitive and motivational
self-regulation are explicit educational targets? We assume that such an implemen-
tation could only be realized if we were able to change universities into smart schools
in which both teachers and students reach the highest levels of awareness of cogni-
tive, affective, conative and regulative processes (Perkins, 1992), in which the teach-
ers shift their role from that of experts transmitting declarative and procedural knowl-
edge to that of coaches (Boekaerts, 1997, p.182) and in which more room is left for
self-defined goals.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the teaching staff and the students of the Limburg University
Center who participated in this investigation. They also appreciate the comments and
suggestions made by three anonymous referees on an earlier version of this article.
References
Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28,
149–167.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psy-
chologist, 1(2), 100–112.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers,
educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.
Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A life-span perspective on
underachievement. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and per-

formance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 45–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mech-
anisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp.
65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex
interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: a volitional analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk
(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 111–142). New York: Springer.
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans. Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Edu-
cational Researcher, 22, 14–22.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J.
Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp.
47–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Corte, E. (1991). Improving problem-solving skills in mathematics: Toward a research-based inter-
vention approach. The School Field, 2, 41–76.
De Corte, E. (1996a). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte, & F. E. Weinert (Eds), Inter-
national encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
De Corte, E. (1996b). New perspectives on learning and teaching in higher education. In E. Burgen (Ed.),
Goals and purposes of higher education in the 21st century. Higher Education Policy Series 32 (pp.
112–132). London: Kingsley.
De Corte, E. (1998). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: a permanent
challenge for instructional psychology. Presidential address presented at the 24th International Congres
of Applied Psychology, San Franscisco.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Schrooten, H. (1990). Cognitive effects of learning to program LOGO:
a one year study with sixth graders. In E. De Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),
Computer-based learning environments and problem solving. Nato ASI Series F: Computer and sys-
tems sciences (Vol. 84, pp. 207–228). Berlin: Springer.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Schrooten, H. (1991). Transfer van kennis en cognitieve vaardigheden.
(Transfer of knowledge and cognitive skills.) In Onderwijskundig lexicon (A3300, 1-19). Alphen aan
de Rijn, The Netherlands: Samson.
De Jong, F. P. C. M. (1992). Zelfstandig leren. Regulatie van het leerproces en leren reguleren: een
procesbenadering. (Independent learning. Regulation of the learning process and learning to regulate:
A process approach.) Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Depreeuw, R. (1989). Faalangst. Theorievorming, testconstructie en resultaatonderzoek van de gedrags-
therapeutische behandeling. (Fear of failure. Theory building, test construction and results of behavior
therapeutic treatment.) Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Dominowski, R. L. (1998). Verbalization and problem solving. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 25–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunlosky, J. (1998). Linking metacognitive theory to education. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 367–382). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Elen, J. (1992). Toward prescriptions in instructional design: a theoretical and empirical approach. Doc-
toral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Entwistle, N. J. (1992). The impact of teaching on learning outcomes in higher education. A literature
review. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, Edinburgh.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, &
R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glaser, R. (1987). Learning theory and theories of knowledge. In E. De Corte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parment-
ier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction. European research in an international context (Vol.
1, pp. 397–414). Oxford/Leuven: Pergamon Press, University Press.
Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and the regulation of problem solving behavior. In F. E. Wei-
nert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuhl, J. (1987). Feeling versus being helpless: metacognitive mediation of failure-induced performance
deficits. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp.
217–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Masui, C., Borremans, A., Van Damme, J., & Vandenberghe, R. (1986). Technieken voor het expliciteren
en interpreteren van oplossingsgedrag in het kader van studiebegeleiding. (Methods for verbalization
and interpretation of problem solving behavior within the framework of study guidance.) In E. De
Corte (Ed.), Onderwijsleerprocessen. Bevindingen van Leuvens onderwijspsychologisch onderzoek.
Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional
Science, 26, 49–64.
McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: the self as agent
in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51–69.
Mettes, C. T. C. W. (1987). Factual and procedural knowledge: Learning to solve science problems. In
E. De Corte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction. European
research in an international context (Vol. 1, pp. 285–295). Oxford/Leuven: Pergamon Press, Univer-
sity Press.
Minnaert, A. (1996). Academic performance, cognition, metacognition and motivation. Assessing freshmen
chacteristics on task: a validation and replication study in higher education. Doctoral dissertation,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Minnaert, A., & Janssen, P. J. (1992). The causal role of domain-specific prior knowledge on study skills
and curriculum outcomes after five academic years. Paper presented at the European Conference on
Educational Research, Universiteit Twente.
O’Neil, H. F., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: potential
for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89, 234–245.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools. From educating memories to educating minds. New York: Free
Press.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18,
16–25.
Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: a research
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1–41.
Pressley, M., Van Etten S., Yokoi L., Freebern, G., & Van Meter P. (1998).The metacognition of college
studentship: a grounded theory approach. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),
Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 347–366). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Romainville, M. (1994). Awareness of cognitive strategies: the relationship between university students’
metacognition and their performance. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 359–366.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–126.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 83–110). New York: Springer.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol-
ogist, 25, 71–86.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues
and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simon, H. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. T. Tuma, & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and
education: Issues in teaching and research (pp. 81–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simons, P. R. J. (1990). Transfervermogen. (Transfer ability.) (Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding
van het ambt van gewoon hoogleraar in de interdisciplinaire onderwijskunde, in het bijzonder de
onderwijsverbetering aan de Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Universit-
air Publikatiebureau KUN, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Simons, P. R. J., & Liew-On, M. (1991). Breadth of orientation: Individual differences and training. In
M. Carretero, M. Pope, P. R. J. Simons, & J. I. Pozo (Eds.), Learning and instruction. European
research in an international context (Vol. 3, pp. 435–450). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student?
Instructional Science, 26(1), 127–140.
Swaak, J., Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The
effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and
Instruction, 8(3), 235–252.
Van Hout-Wolters, B. (1992). Cognitieve strategieën als onderwijsdoel. (Cognitive strategies as edu-
cational objectives.) Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van gewoon hoogleraar in
de onderwijskunde ten behoeve van de opleiding en nascholing van leraren aan de Universiteit van
Amsterdam. Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters–Noordhoff.
Van Overwalle, F. (1987). Causes of success and failure of freshmen at university: an attributional
approach. Doctoral dissertation. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium.
Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1991). Intellectual ability and working method as predictors of
novice learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 303–317.
Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs domain-specificity of metacogni-
tive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and instruction, 7, 187–209.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. Naar
procesgerhte instructie in zelfstandig denken. (Learning styles and regulation of learning processes in
higher education: Toward process oriented instruction in independent thinking.) Doctoral dissertation,
Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam/Lisse, The Netherlands.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1995). Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 325–350.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and stra-
tegies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.
Voss, J. F. (1987). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: a problem-solving model. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 11, 607–622.
Volet, S. E. (1991). Modelling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university
students learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319–336.
Volet, S. E. (1994). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction
and effort in students’ goals. Paper presented at the 23th International Congres of Applied Psychology,
Madrid, Spain.
Volet, S. E., McGill, T., & Pears, H. (1995). Implementing process-based instruction in regular university
teaching: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. European Journal of Psychology of Edu-
cation, 10, 385–400.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement.
New York: Springer.

Enhancing Learning and Problem Solving Skills Orienting and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Enhancing Learning and Problem Solving Skills Orienting and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning and Instruction 9 (1999) 517–542

Enhancing learning and problem solving skills:

Keywords: Higher education; Learning skills; Metacognition; Self-regulation; Design experiment;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹ 32 11 268667; fax: ⫹ 32 11 268700; e-mail: chris.masui@luc.ac.be

2. Theoretical background and practical relevance

2.1. Metacognitve, affective and conative aspects of learning

2.2. Selecting metacognitive, affective and conative activities

Before explaining how we selected from this multitude of regulative, cognitive

2.3. Designing a powerful teaching–learning environment

3. Research questions and hypotheses

4.2. The experimental and control interventions

4.2.1. Definition of orienting and self-judging

4.2.2. The interventions concerning orienting and self-judging

4.2.3. The control interventions

4.3. Measurement instruments and analysis

Metacognitive knowledge about orienting and self-judging was directly investi-

4.3.1. Metacognitive knowledge of orienting and self-judging

4.3.2. Orienting and self-judging behavior, measurement of transfer

4.3.3. Academic performance

Overall, students in the experimental group had significantly more knowledge of

Category of orienting E (46) C1 (41) C2 (44)

Informants Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Goal 0.20 0.45 0.15 0.36 0.11 0.32

E (46) C1 (41) C2 (44)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Kn. of personal 6.02 2.19 4.98** 1.99 5.27 2.72

complex characteristics. Most striking in the representation of the different categories

5.2. Hypothesis 2: there is a positive relationship between orienting and self-

Variable E (46) C1 (41) C2 (45)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Study time 2.11 0.99 1.78* 1.01 1.62*** 0.98

Self-judging arguments E (46) C1 (41) C2 (45)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

General arguments 0.39 0.49 0.29 0.51 0.44 0.69

***P ⬍ 0.01 refer to the differences with the experimental group.

dents mentioned significantly more personal statements than control students (P ⫽

5.4. Hypothesis 4: there is a positive relationship between orienting and self-

6. Conclusions and discussion

This article reports an attempt to stimulate the integration of metacognitive, affect-

Conceivably, larger differences between experimental and control students could

underachievement. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and per-

You might also like