La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres
Télécharger Lire

To calibrate or not to calibrate? [Elektronische Ressource] : conditions and processes of metacognitive calibration during hypermedia learning / vorgelegt von Stephanie Pieschl

De
291 pages
Fachgebiet: Psychologie TO CALIBRATE OR NOT TO CALIBRATE? CONDITIONS AND PROCESSES OF METACOGNITIVE CALIBRATION DURING HYPERMEDIA LEARNING Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster (Westf.) vorgelegt von Stephanie Pieschl aus Münster (Westf.) Münster, 2007 Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 06.02.2008Dekan: Prof. Dr. Woyke Referent: Dr. Bromme Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Winne Acknowledgements Even though I am the person responsible for every written word in this Ph.D. thesis, any work is a communal effort. I got advice and support from many people, from colleagues as well as from friends and family. Thanks to all of you. However, some people will be ad-dressed specifically because they contributed more to this thesis than others. My dissertation was embedded in a project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) about the impact of epistemological beliefs on learning processes. The primary in-vestigators of this project, Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme and Prof. Dr. Elmar Stahl, were not only my superiors but also my main advisors for my thesis. Thank you for your support, your patience and many constructive discussions.
Voir plus Voir moins

Fachgebiet: Psychologie

TO CALIBRATE OR NOT TO CALIBRATE?
CONDITIONS AND PROCESSES OF METACOGNITIVE
CALIBRATION DURING HYPERMEDIA LEARNING


Inaugural-Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
der
Philosophischen Fakultät
der
Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität
zu
Münster (Westf.)

vorgelegt von
Stephanie Pieschl
aus Münster (Westf.)

Münster, 2007

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 06.02.2008
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Woyke
Referent: Dr. Bromme
Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Winne Acknowledgements

Even though I am the person responsible for every written word in this Ph.D. thesis, any
work is a communal effort. I got advice and support from many people, from colleagues as
well as from friends and family. Thanks to all of you. However, some people will be ad-
dressed specifically because they contributed more to this thesis than others.
My dissertation was embedded in a project funded by the German Research Foundation
(DFG) about the impact of epistemological beliefs on learning processes. The primary in-
vestigators of this project, Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme and Prof. Dr. Elmar Stahl, were not
only my superiors but also my main advisors for my thesis. Thank you for your support,
your patience and many constructive discussions. Furthermore, student research assistants
were involved in this project who not only contributed to this thesis by helping with data
collection, but also by working independently on the project while I was preoccupied with
my dissertation. Thank you: Stephanie Adrian, Sabine Joachim, Mike Pillukat, Torsten
Porsch, Leoni Pytlik, and Janina Wolters. Furthermore, even though not all my colleagues
from the research group of Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme were directly involved in my thesis,
they still contributed by being responsible for an enjoyable working climate. Thank you.
I owe further thanks to the faculty and the Ph.D. students of the Virtual Ph.D. Program
(VGK) of the German Research Foundation (DFG) who gave constant feedback on my
thesis. Especially, I want to thank Prof. Dr. Dr. Friedrich Hesse who was my advisor
within this graduate program.
In addition, international researchers also contributed, especially Dr. Tom Murray who
helped me set up MetaLinks and Prof. Dr. Phil Winne and his research team at Simon Fra-
ser University who welcomed me during a research visit and gave valuable feedback.
Furthermore, I have to thank my friends for not abandoning me although I was often ab-
sent during the writing process. Last but not least, a big thank you to my family, especially
to my parents Lothar and Sefi, but also to my sister Patricia and her husband Ilyes who
worked on an even more important project during this time, my niece Menyar. I want to
dedicate this thesis to my deceased grandparents, especially to Walter Pieschl who was
about to become the first doctor in the family when World War II broke out.
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................5
2.1 The COPES-Model of Studying (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) ......................................................5
2.1.1 The COPES Facets for Learning........................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 The Four Stages of the COPES-Model............................................................................................. 9
2.1.3 Metacognitive Processes in the COPES-Model ............................................................................. 14
2.1.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Metacognitive Calibration ....................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Selective and Critical Review of Traditional Research on Calibration ........................................ 19
2.2.2 An Extended Definition of the Construct Calibration.................................................................. 26
2.2.3 A New Research Strategy – Transfer of Methodology 28
2.2.4 Conclusion...................... 34
2.3 Task Complexity – An Important External Condition ........................................................... 35
2.3.1 Theoretical Conceptualizations and Potential Operationalisations ............................................. 35
2.3.2 Bloom’s (Revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ............................................................ 39
2.3.3 Empirical Results and Corresponding Theoretical Explanations ................................................ 48
2.3.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 50
2.4 Text Complexity – An Important External Condition 51
2.4.1 Theoretical Conceptualizations and Potential Operationalisations ............................................. 52
2.4.2 Empirical Results and Corresponding Theoretical Explanations ................................................ 54
2.4.3 Conclusion...................... 56
2.5 Prior Domain Knowledge – An Important Internal Condition ..............................................57
2.5.1 Theoretical Framework – the Expert Paradigm ............................................................................. 58
2.5.2 Empirical Results and Corresponding Theoretical Explanations ................................................ 61
2.5.3 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 68
2.6 Epistemological Beliefs – An Important Internal Condition ................................................. 69
2.6.1 Theoretical Conceptualizations and Potential Operationalisations ............................................. 70
2.6.2 Empirical Results and Corresponding Theoretical Explanations ................................................ 81
2.6.3 Conclusion...................... 87
3 EMPIRICAL STUDIES................................................................................. 91
3.1 Main Research Questions of the Empirical Studies ............................................................... 92
3.1.1 Short Review of Research Questions............................................................................................... 92
3.1.2 Operationalisation of Research Questions...................................................................................... 94
3.2 Hypertext on “Genetic Fingerprinting”.................................................................................. 98 3.2.1 MetaLinks – A Template for Hierarchical Hypertexts...................................................................99
3.2.2 Navigation in the Hypertext............................................................................................................ 100
3.2.3 The Overall Structure of the Hypertext on “Genetic Fingerprinting”...................................... 101
3.2.4 A Quantitative Description of the Hypertext on “Genetic Fingerprinting”............................ 104
3.2.5 Chapter on mtDNA Analysis ......................................................................................................... 106
3.2.6 r on STR Analysis ................................................................................................................ 108
3.2.7 Chapter on Y-STR Analysis...... 109
3.2.8 Formative and Summative Evaluation of Text Complexity ....................................................... 110
3.2.8.1 Pilot 1 – Formative Evaluation............................................................................................ 110
3.2.8.2 Pilot 2 – Formatuation 112
3.2.8.3 Pilot 3 – Summative Evaluation .......................................................................................... 113
3.2.8.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 115
3.3 Study I - Calibration to Task Complexity in the Preparatory Stages.....................................116
3.3.1 Method............................................................................................................................................... 116
3.3.1.1 Procedure................................................................................................................................ 116
3.3.1.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 117
3.3.1.3 Materials............ 118
3.3.2 Results................................................................................................................................................ 124
3.3.2.1 Do Students Discriminate Between Tasks of Different Complexity?............................ 124
3.3.2.2 Do Students Calibrate to Task Complexity?...................................................................... 125
3.3.2.3 The Impact of Prior Domain Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs ........................ 127
3.3.3 Local Discussion............................................................................................................................... 130
3.3.3.1 Discrimination and Calibration............................................................................................ 130
3.3.3.2 The Impact of Prior Domain Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs ........................ 131
3.3.3.3 Open Issues and Implications.............................................................................................. 134
3.4 Study II – Calibration to Task Complexity in the Enactment Stages .................................. 136
3.4.1 Method............................................................................................................................................... 136
3.4.1.1 Procedure................................................................................................................................ 136
3.4.1.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 137
3.4.1.3 Materials............ 138
3.4.2 Results................................................................................................................................................ 146
3.4.2.1 Do Students Discriminate Between Tasks of Different Complexity?............................ 146
3.4.2.2 Do Students Calibrate to Task Complexity?...................................................................... 151
3.4.2.3 The Impact of Prior Domain Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs ........................ 152
3.4.2.4 Determinants of the Learning Outcome............................................................................ 156
3.4.3 Local Discussion............................................................................................................................... 161
3.4.3.1 Discrimination and Calibration............................................................................................ 161
3.4.3.2 The Impact of Prior Domain Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs ........................ 162
3.4.3.3 Determinants of the Learning Outcome 165
3.4.3.4 Open Issues and Implications.............................................................................................. 166
3.5 Study III – Calibration to Text Complexity in the Enactment Stages ................................. 168
3.5.1 Method............................................................................................................................................... 169
3.5.1.1 Procedure................................................................................................................................ 169
3.5.1.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 169
3.5.1.3 Materials............ 170 3.5.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 172
3.5.2.1 Do Students Discriminate Between Texts of Different Complexity? ............................ 175
3.5.2.2 Do Students Calibrate to Text Complexity?....................................................................... 175
3.5.2.3 The Impact of Prior Domain Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs......................... 176
3.5.2.4 Determinants of the Learning Outcome ............................................................................ 181
3.5.3 Local Discussion............................................................................................................................... 185
3.5.3.1 Discrimination and Calibration............................................................................................ 185
3.5.3.2 The Impact of Prior Domain Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs......................... 186
3.5.3.3 Determinants of the Learning Outcome 189
3.5.3.4 Open Issues and Implications.............................................................................................. 190
4 GENERAL DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 193
4.1 Are the Empirical Results Consistent with the COPES-Model?.......................................... 194
4.2 Do Learners Adapt their Learning to External Conditions? ................................................ 194
4.3 Which are the Most Important External Conditions?........................................................... 199
4.4 Do Internal Conditions Impact these Adaptation Processes?.............................................. 201
4.4.1 Prior Domain Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 202
4.4.2 Epistemological Beliefs.................................................................................................................... 205
4.5 Do Conditions Impact All Stages Alike? ............................................................................... 209
4.6 Is More Flexible and Accurate Adaptation Beneficial for Learning?....................................211
4.7 Proposing Specifications of the COPES-Model.................................................................... 213
4.8 Practical Implications............................................................................................................ 216
4.9 Future Research ..................................................................................................................... 217
REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 221
APPENDIX........................................................................................................... 253