Jl.

of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (2009) 18(1), 5-25

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback to Facilitate Comprehension of Complex Science Topics and Self-Regulation

HYEON WOO LEE, KYU YON LIM aNd BaRBaRa GRaBOWSKI The Pennsylvania State University USA hwlee@psu.edu kylim@psu.edu bgrabowski@psu.edu
Comprehension of complex science topics occurs from the creation of new understanding of the information by the learner. However, learners are not very successful generating their own meaning, especially in computer based learning environments in which learners are required to make decisions about their learning process, since they rarely regulate their own learning process cognitively or metacognitively. This study examined the instructional effects of generative learning strategy and metacognitive feedback on learners comprehension and self-regulation while learning a complex science topic in a computer-based learning environment. The 36 participants were assigned to either static visualized instructional material dealing with the human heart system, the same material with generative strategy, or the same material with generative strategy and metacognitive feedback. The results of this study revealed that the generative strategy with metacognitive feedback group scored significantly higher on comprehension and self-regulation measures. The results also found a significant positive relationship between self-regulation and comprehension.

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

Computer-Based Learning Environments (CBLEs) such as hypermedia and web-based instruction have recently been widely used as expected means of enhancing students understanding complex and challenging science topics with technological and instructional advances. despite the educational potential with CBLEs, research has shown that learners are not successful with controlling their own learning in CBLEs and consequently there is little evidence that the use of hypermedia leads to significant learning gains (azevedo, Cromley, & Seibert, 2004; dabbach & Kitsantas, 2005). Learning may be obstructed because of certain characteristics of CBLEs, such as freedom of navigating or sequencing instruction and limitation of using cognitive learning strategies like underlining or note-taking. In addition, since understanding and reasoning about complex science topics cause a huge burden of working memory resources (Feltovich, Coulson, & Spiro, 2001; Narayanan & Hegarty, 1988), learners who lack the self-regulatory skills may not be able to utilize the potential of CBLEs for complex science topics (Hmelo-Silver & azevedo, 2006; Winne, Nesbit, Kumar, Hadwin, Lajoie, azevedo, et al., 2006). Complex science topics deal with complex systems that have multiple interconnected components, and whose behavior is not explained exclusively by examining the isolated components, since the phenomena result from the multiple interactions of the components (Sabelli, 2006). The functioning of the human heart is a good example of a complex science topic. The human heart has multiple components such as several chambers, layers of membranes and muscle, valves, and veins connected with other systems. Those components function simultaneously by interacting with each other. There are some underlying principles explaining the function of the heart and the circulation of blood through the heart. So, to understand the principles of how the human heart as a system works, learners need to integrate all properties and functions of each individual component. Mere memorization of the components of the system leads to little understanding of how the system works (Hmelo-Silver & azevedo, 2006). This cognitive integration process can occur when learners use cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and when they are motivated and responsible for their own learning. This concept is in line with the knowledge generation process of Wittrocks generative learning theory (Wittrock, 1974, 1990 1991, 1992). Generative Learning for Comprehension of Complex Science Topics according to the generative learning model, to comprehend a complex topic, learners need to selectively attend to events and generate meaning

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

for events by constructing relations between new or incoming information and previously acquired information, conceptions, and background knowledge (Wittrock, 1992, p. 532). In this model, comprehension and understanding result from the generation of relations both among concepts and between experience or prior learning and information. That is, comprehension occurs from the creation of new understandings of the information by the learner, rather than transferring the presented information (Grabowski, 2004). The essence of this model of generative learning is knowledge generation. Only those activities that involve the actual creation of relationships and meaning would be classified as examples of generative learning strategies. Restructuring of environmental information by definition requires the learner to generate either organizational or integrated relationships and construct personal meaning, thereby qualifying as being generative. One very basic assumption of this model is that learners are not passively receiving learning, but they are actively engaged in the construction of meaning as it relates to their preconceptions, abstract knowledge, everyday experience, and the context in which learning is occurring (Wittrock, 1974). The most frequently used learning strategies employed in the name of generative learning are underlining and note-taking. Learners meaningfully relate what they read to information they already know (Rickards, 1979). Similarly, a learner naturally engages in generative activity through paraphrasing sentences to combine ideas from the passage, or to relate them to prior knowledge. In addition, note-taking can be used as a more complex coding strategy in hypermedia. For example, when learners are provided note fields in CBLEs, the learners can, or are required to, use those fields for headings, summaries, or concept maps (Barab, Young, & Wang, 1999). adjunct questioning is another strategy that has been consistently considered as a generative activity. Provided or self-generated questions provoke generative thinking by stimulating attention and intention of the learner to connect ideas from a passage together, thereby creating personally meaningful understanding (Wittrock, 1990). Rickards and august (1975) found that college students who were allowed to underline text that they considered most relevant performed better on the posttest. doctorow, Wittrock, and Marks (1978) showed that students who generated paragraph summaries significantly increased their retention and comprehension compared to the control group who did not generate summaries. In addition, Barab and his colleagues (1999) reported that learners who were engaged in generative activity showed higher comprehension scores in a computer-based learning environment.

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

The effectiveness of generative learning strategies has been shown from previous research, but the results are not consistent (Grabowski, 2004). Learners need to control their own knowledge generation process, especially in computer-based learning environments in which learners already have a huge cognitive burden, so learners cognitive and metacognitive regulation is a critical process here (Barab, Young, & Wang, 1999; Wittrock, 1991). Furthermore, the knowledge generation process is to create relations between new information and learners prior knowledge in nature. Current theoretical and empirical advances about self-regulation and prior knowledge can explain the mixed results regarding the generative learning model. Self-Regulation in Generative Learning By definition, self-regulated learners are behaviorally, motivationally, and metacognitively active participants in their own learning process (Zimmerman, 1986). This interpretation is in line with Wittrocks emphasis on learners motivation, cognitive learning strategy, and metacognitive processes in knowledge generation processes. Learners especially need to deploy their self-regulation skills to learn about complex topics in computer-based learning environments, since they are required to regulate their learning process. They should make decisions about which information to access, how much time to spend in the different representations of information, and when and how to revise their strategies (Shapiro, 1999). However, several studies have shown that learners use little cognitive regulation, or often make inappropriate metacognitive decisions, especially in computer-based learning environment (azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Roll, Baker, aleven, McLaren, & Koedinger, 2005). So, it is necessary to provide support and guidance to facilitate learners self-regulatory process. This supporting procedure is a cyclical and recursive process, which utilizes feedback mechanisms for students to monitor, be aware of, and adjust their learning process accordingly (azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003). The primary benefit of instructional feedbackany information given to responders allowing them to evaluate the adequacy of their responsesis in correcting errors that may occur in the learning process (Bangert-drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and Morgan., 1991). So, to support learners self-regulatory process and meaningful generation of learning, one effective way may be providing feedback on their metacognitive process such as decisions about which cognitive strategies to use and how to use them (Butler & Winne, 1995; Winne, 1997; Wittrock, 1992). Metacognitive feedback is the

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

communication that makes a learner conscious of the learning strategies and styles they are using and whether those strategies are successful. It is seen as a strategy increasing the learners awareness of what they dont know, what they need to know, and what learning strategies work (Jacobs & dempsey, 1993). Friend (1999) reported that providing training on judging the importance of content and construction of a thesis statement had a positive impact on a students ability to note argument repetition and generalization. Kramarski and Gutman (2006) tested the effectiveness of self-metacognitive questioning in their study. Students supported with self-metacognitive questioning in e-learning environments significantly outperformed in achievement and in using self-monitoring strategies. additionally, the extensive use of generative learning strategy, in turn, can enhance learners self-regulation. Chularut and deBacker (2004) investigated the effect of a generative learning strategy, concept mapping, on students achievement as well as self-regulation and self-efficacy in learning English as a second language. In addition to the benefit of achievement, their results showed a positive effect of engaging in concept mapping, which showed increases in students selfregulation and self-efficacy relative to the control group. Prior Knowledge in Generative Learning Research has demonstrated that a complex interrelationship of several individual factors impact domain learning (alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1994). Prior knowledge has been found to be a crucial variable that contributes to learning outcomes (alexander, 2003; alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995; Shapiro, 2004). It represents the basic building blocks of the human information processing system, key units of the comprehension process, and a determinant factor in learning (ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978). Furthermore, prior knowledge can influence cognitive processes during learning. novice learners are not typically familiar with the procedures associated with constructive self-regulative learning (Tergan, 1997, pp. 227-228). Some research also indicates that low prior knowledge students tend to rarely regulate their learning by using key self-regulatory processes such as planning their learning, activating their prior knowledge, monitoring their emerging understanding of the topic, or deploying effective strategies (azevedo, Cuthrie, & Seibert, 2004; Shapiro, 2004). In summary, a generative learning conceptual framework intended to explain the essence of generative learning theory and describe the mecha-

10

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

nism of related psychological constructs is proposed in Figure 1. according to prior empirical studies, generative activities enhance learners knowledge generation by creating relationships among or between new information and prior knowledge. This process results in acquisition of new knowledge that is necessary for generating new knowledge and learner self-regulation. This generative activity is also guided by learner self-regulation (Lee, Lim, & Grabowski, in press; Wittrock, 1974, 1990, 1991, 1992). In addition to the mechanisms as represented by solid lines in Figure 1, three hypothesized mechanisms are proposed by dotted lines. This study hypothesized that a learner who is supported with metacognitive feedback would better comprehend the complex science topics, due to their active processing while making meaning. This mentally active processing, in turn, would enhance learner self-regulation but would occur differently based on the learners level of prior knowledge.

Figure 1. Generative learning conceptual framework. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The purpose of this research was to investigate the instructional effects of generative learning strategies and metacognitive feedback on self-regulation and comprehension of college-level students with high and low levels of prior knowledge. Three research questions guided this investigation: (a) do generative learning strategies or generative learning strategies with metacognitive feedback improve learners comprehension and self-regula-

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

11

tion? (b) Is there an interaction between generative strategies or generative strategies with metacognitive feedback and the level of prior knowledge on learners comprehension and self-regulation? (c) does a relationship exist between learners self-regulation and comprehension? METHOD Participants In the fall of 2006, forty-one undergraduate students from a general science course at a northeastern university volunteered to participate in this study. Thirty-six participants completed the study. There were four freshmen, ten sophomores, thirteen juniors, and nine seniors. Eleven participants were female and twenty-five participants were male. Instructional Materials The paper-based text materials developed by dwyer and Lamberski (1977) about the human heart were adapted for this study. The original script for the heart content contained approximately 1,800 words divided into three sections: the parts of the heart, circulation of blood, and cycle of blood pressure. The self-paced computer-based instruction was developed using interactive form fields with static graphics about the human heart. Twenty screens were developed for each treatment. Treatments Static visualized instruction (Control group, T1). This treatment contained one page of directions and 20 pages of PdF instructional screens, with instructional text on the left and the corresponding graphic on the right. Two navigational buttons were located at the bottom of each screen: previous and next. Participants were allowed to navigate at their own pace. a sample screen shot of the static visualized treatment is shown in Figure 2.

12

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

Figure 2. a sample screen shot of the static visualized instruction. Static Visualized Instruction with Generative learning strategies (T2). The instructional scripts and graphics of this treatment were the same as the control group (T1), except all 20 instructional screens contained embedded generative learning strategies including highlighting, note-taking, and adjunct questions. In addition, three tutorial pages about how to use adobe acrobat 7.0 professional interactive tools were presented prior to the instruction to minimize frustration of participants who were not familiar with the software. While the participants are reading this tutorial, the administrator provided individual help when participants had problems using the tools. The instructional materials asked participants to highlight important sentences in the instruction, and then asked participants to summarize or organize their understanding in the provided note-taking field. Following ten instructional screens #5, #8, #9, #12, #13, #14, #15, #18, #19, and #20, an adjunct question was asked. Simple knowledge of correct response feedback was providedright or wrong. The instruction proceeded regardless of the correctness of the learners response. a sample screen shot of the generative learning strategy is provided in Figure 3.

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

13

Figure 3. a sample screen shot of the generative learning strategy treatment.

14

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

Static Visualized Instruction with Generative learning strategy and metacognitive feedback (T3). This treatment was the same as the second treatment (T2) except that metacognitive feedback was given in addition to knowledge of correct response feedback for each question. For example, if a participant selected incorrect answer, he or she was provided the following feedback: Incorrect! You need to go back and revise your highlighted sentence or summary. See sample screen shot in Figure 4.

Figure 4. a sample screen shot of the generative learning strategy with metacognitive feedback. Procedures The participants were asked to come to a university computer lab and then they were allowed access to the research content presented on the universitys course management system. The original 41 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups before coming to the computer lab. after logging into the research site, the participants took an online pretest consisting of 15 items about human heart terminology. The participants were instructed to download the instructional material and study it. afterwards, the participants took a criterion post test about their comprehension of the human heart and completed a survey about their self-regula-

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

15

tion while they studied the treatment material. The number of participants for each experimental session was limited to fewer than 15 participants, so that the researcher could prevent cheating and interfering behavior of other participants. Four (4) experimental sessions were held in one week. Measurement Instruments Prior Knowledge Test. a pretest was adapted from the criterion test developed by dwyer (1978) to measure the participants level of prior knowledge about the human heart. The pretest consisted of 15 multiple choice questions measuring knowledge of specific facts, terminology, and definitions. Of the 20 original items, 5 were eliminated because item analysis indicated they were too difficult. Participants were asked to answer multiple choice questions by selecting the answer that best describes different parts of the heart. an example test item follows: ________ is (are) the part(s) of the heart which controls its contraction and relaxation. a. MYOCaRdIUM b. ENdOCaRdIUM c. VENTRICLES d. aURICLES e. SEPTUM a satisfactory internal consistency of Cronbachs alpha reliability was reported for the original terminology test, .82 (dwyer, 1978). Cronbachs alpha for the pretest being used in the current study was .46. Comprehension Test. The posttest was adapted from the criterion test developed by dwyer (1978) to measure the participants comprehension about the human heart. The test consists of 19 multiple choice questions. This test measures understanding of complex procedures and/or interactive functions of each component. One item, which had an ambiguous stem, was excluded. Participants are required to thoroughly understand the heart, its components, its internal functioning, and the simultaneous processes that occur during the systolic and diastolic phases. The test measures a higherlevel cognitive task of whether the participant understood what was being communicated and could use it to explain some other phenomenon (dwyer, 1978). an example test item follows: When the pressure in the right ventricle is superior to that in the pulmonary artery, in what position is the tricuspid valve? a. Closed b. Open c. Beginning to close d. Confined by pressure from the right auricle

1

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

a satisfactory internal consistency of Cronbachs alpha reliability was reported for the original comprehension test, .82 (dwyer, 1978). Cronbachs alpha for the test being used in the current study was .63, demonstrating adequate internal consistency. Self-regulation Survey. The post survey was adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire developed by Pintrich and his colleagues (Pintrich, david, Teresa, & Wilbert, 1991), which is a self-report instrument measuring college students motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies (p. 3). The MSLQ was originally designed as a paper and pencil test. It could be used as a whole including 15 different constructs, or each scale could be used separately to measure particular constructs. For this study, five scales including rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation were selected and revised from the original MSLQ. These particular constructs were selected because they deal with learners cognitive and metacognitive strategies which are of primary interest in this study. The revised questions were the same as in the original, except that the words this class or this course were replaced with this material. an example of the survey items follows: If the contents of the material were difficult to understand, I changed the way I studied the material. The validity and reliability of the original form of the MSLQ has been confirmed in several studies (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich et al., 1991; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). The reliabilities for the original versions of five scales used in the current study were: rehearsal, .69; elaboration, .76; organization, .64; critical thinking, .80; and metacognitive self-regulation, .79 (Pintrich et al., 1991). The modified version of the current study demonstrated adequate internal consistency, .75. Design and Data Analysis The study used a 2 x 3 factorial design with two levels of prior knowledgehigh versus lowand three treatment groupsstatic visualized instruction, generative learning strategies, and generative learning strategies with metacognitive feedback. a two-way analysis of variance (aNOVa) was conducted to test for the main effects and the interaction between prior knowledge level and the three treatments on comprehension, as well as selfregulation. Finally, a correlation analysis was conducted to test the relationship between learners comprehension and self-regulation. a significance level of .05 was set for all statistical tests.

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback RESULTS Pretest

1

The scores for the human heart pretest were converted into percentages that ranged from 6% to 67% with the mean of 29%. Overall the participants had low prior knowledge on the human heart. a one-way analysis of variance (aNOVa) indicated that the three groups were not significantly different in terms of their prior knowledge level, F(2, 33) = .779, p = .467. The mean score was used as a cut-off point to distinguish between high (m=35%) and low (m=20%) prior knowledge. Post Test: Comprehension and Self-regulation The means and standard deviations for the comprehension test and the self-regulation survey as well as their combined total by treatment group and prior knowledge level are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Means and Standard deviations
Group Prior Knowledge level Low High Total T2 Generative strategy T3 Metacognitive feedback Total Low High Total Low High Total Low High Total n Comprehension(a) M 4 6 10 5 9 14 5 7 12 14 22 36 11.50 (60.5%) 12.50 (63.2%) 12.10 (63.7%) 14.80 (77.9%) 14.33 (75.4%) 14.50 (76.3%) 15.40 (81.1%) 16.86 (88.7%) 16.25 (85.5%) 14.07 (74.1%) 14.64 (77.1%) 14.42 (75.9%) SD 2.082 2.588 2.331 2.280 1.500 1.743 2.966 2.854 2.864 2.868 2.787 2.792 Self-Regulation(b) M 3.55 3.64 3.60 3.86 3.99 3.94 4.50 4.07 4.26 4.00 3.92 3.95 SD .723 .317 .482 .237 .877 .703 .434 .600 .559 .603 .673 .639

T1 Control

(a) The comprehension test contains 19 items and each item was worth 1point. Thus the scores could range from a low of 0 to a high of 19 (b) Likert scale: 7=very true of me, 1=not at all true of me.

1

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

Analysis of Null Hypotheses RQ. 1. Do generative learning strategies or generative learning strategies with metacognitive feedback improve learners comprehension and selfregulation? RQ. 2. Is there an interaction between generative learning strategies or generative learning strategies with metacognitive feedback and prior knowledge level on learners comprehension and self-regulation? a two-way aNOVa was run to provide answers to research questions 1 and 2. To check the homogeneity of variances, the Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances for the comprehension test score of three treatment groups and levels of prior knowledge was run. The result indicated no significant differences among the six groups (F(5,30)=.791, p=.565). The results of the two-way aNOVa for the post-test score on comprehension are reported in Table 2. Figure 5 displays the interaction. Table 2 Two-Way aNOVa for the Post-Test Scores on Comprehension
Source Treatment Prior Knowledge Interaction Error df 2 1 2 30 Type III SS 90.497 3.701 6.184 169.357 Mean Square 45.249 3.701 3.092 5.645 F 8.015 .656 .548 P .002 .425 .584 partial Eta-squared .348 .021 .035

Figure 5. Mean score differences of the treatment x prior knowledge.

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

19

analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for treatment with large difference (F(2,30)=8.015, p=.002, partial Eta squared=.348). However, the main effect for prior knowledge was not significant (F(1,30)=.656, p=.425, partial Eta squared=.021); neither was the interaction of treatment and prior knowledge significant (F(2,30)=.548, p=.584, partial Eta squared=.035). The pair-wise comparisons among three treatment groups demonstrated that the mean score on comprehension of the generative strategy with metacognitive feedback group was significantly higher than the mean score on comprehension of the control group (p=.001). However, there was no significant difference between the mean score on comprehension of the generative strategy group and the control group (p=.053), or between the mean score on comprehension of the generative strategy group and the mean score of the generative strategy with metacognitive feedback group (p=.164). The Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances for the post self-regulation survey scores of three treatment groups and levels of prior knowledge indicated significant differences among the six (F(5,30)=3.931, p=.007). However, the failure to meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance is not fatal to aNOVa, which is relatively robust (Box, 1954), so a two-way aNOVa was run to answer research questions 1 and 2 about self-regulation. The results of the two-way for the post-test score on self-regulation are reported in Table 3. analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for treatment. aNOVa revealed significant differences between the three groups (F(2,30)=3.429, p=.046, partial Eta squared=.186). However, the main effect for prior knowledge was not significant (F(1,30)=.108, p=.744, partial Eta squared=.004); nor was the interaction of treatment and prior knowledge significant (F(2,30)=.731, p=.490, partial Eta squared=.046). Table 3 Two-Way aNOVa for the Post-Survey Scores on Self-Regulation
Source Treatment Prior Knowledge Interaction Error df 2 1 2 30 Type III SS 90.497 3.701 6.184 169.357 Mean Square 1.298 .041 .277 .379 F 3.429 .108 .731 P .046 .744 .490 partial Eta-squared .186 .004 .046

Games and Howells modification of Tukeys HSd, which was appropriate for unequal variances, was used for the pair-wise comparisons among three treatment groups (Toothacker, 1993). The results demonstrated that the

20

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

mean score on self-regulation of the generative strategy with metacognitive feedback group was significantly higher than the mean score on self-regulation of the control group (p=.021). However, there was no significant difference between the mean score on self-regulation of the generative strategy group and the control group (p=.387), or between the mean score on selfregulation of the generative strategy group and the mean score of the generative strategy with metacognitive feedback group (p=.407). RQ. 3. Does a relationship exist between learners self-regulation and their test score measuring comprehension? a correlation analysis was conducted to test the relationship between participants self-regulation and their comprehension test score. Pearsons r was calculated to determine the correlation between comprehension and self-regulation variables. Table 4 shows the results of the correlations among two dependent variables. Table 4 Results of Correlation (Pearsons r) among Comprehension and Self-Regulation (n = 36)
Comprehension Comprehension Self-regulation 1 Self-regulation .396* 1

*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level. **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Significant positive correlations were found between comprehension and self-regulation (r=.396, p<.05, n=36). DISCUSSION The results of this study suggest that generative learning strategies with metacognitive feedback are beneficial to students learning complex science topics in a computer-based learning environment. In this study, learners who were supported with a combined generative learning strategy and metacognitive feedback performed significantly better on the comprehension test than those who were not provided either support. These results support and highlight the potential benefit of providing metacognitive feedback in using

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

21

generative learning strategies. That is, previous research indicated that there were mixed results on testing effectiveness of generative learning strategies, but providing metacognitive feedback which enhances learners active generation may ensure the effectiveness of generative learning strategy. The results of this study also indicate that learners who were supported with generative learning strategy and metacognitive feedback reported more extensive use of their cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation strategies during the learning process. However, there was no significant difference between learners who were supported only with generative learning strategy and those who were not. One possible explanation may be that metacognitive feedback enhanced the actual mental creation of knowledge and this mentally active processing increased the learners self-regulation as hypothesized in Figure 1. With respect to the interaction with prior knowledge, this study had expected that learners level of prior knowledge would affect both learners generative activity and self-regulation. In other words, learners who had high prior domain knowledge would benefit by generative strategies but learners who had low prior domain knowledge may not. However, the results of this study did not support this hypothesis. One possible explanation may be the fact that most participants had very low scores on the pre-test about the human heart, indicating that the level of prior knowledge of all participants was low. Thus, this question was not able to be answered adequately with this group. Correlational analysis shows that learners use of self-regulation is correlated with increased comprehension. That is, learners who used more cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation strategies showed higher comprehension scores. This result supports previous research that found students self-regulating skill related to their academic achievement (azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH This study examined learners comprehension and self-regulation when learning a complex science topic in a computer-based learning environment. The findings of this study contribute to the existing body of literature in three significant ways. First, this study supports the use of metacognitive feedback in generative learning. This result provided additional evidence supporting the importance of metacognitive processes in Wittrocks

22

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

(1991) generative learning model. Therefore, it is important for instructional designers or teachers to consider metacognitive scaffolding during learners generation process. Second, this study supports the positive effect of learners generative activities on enhancing self-regulation. To generate relationships among or between new information and memory, learners need to rehearse, elaborate, organize and synthesize the information. These mental activities result in extensive use of self-regulation. In doing so, learners become proficient in regulating their learning process. Third, this study confirms the findings from previous research that documented a positive relationship between learners self-regulation and their academic achievement. although this study expanded the body of knowledge about generative learning, more research is necessary to discover how, and in what other conditions, generative activities can be leveraged. data collection usually fails to capture the critical perceptual and mental processes as they occur in learning processes by addressing only the products of learning (Wittrock, 1991). It is necessary to collect data on how learners actually interact cognitively with generative activities. Currently many studies consider log files as a means of capturing some of processes of navigation; however, it is still not enough to detect learners actual generation of new knowledge. So, further research should continue to reveal how learners generate their own meaning with given generative strategies by collecting process data such as the products of generative activities. For instance, learners overt use of generative learning strategies is evidence of their meaning making process. Learners overt demonstrations can be analyzed by collecting highlighted sentences, notes taken, or concept maps created by the learners, which show how well they selectively attended to important information and how well they actually created relationships and meaning. With respect to the benefit of generative activity, there are individual variations in terms of learners prior self-regulation skill, prior knowledge, and preference. So, there is much research left to do to establish specific guidelines about how to enhance learners active mental processing during learning based on their different levels of prior ability. References
alexander, P. a. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14. alexander, P. a., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: assessing the model of domain learning.

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

23

Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559-575. alexander, P. a., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379-397. ausubel, d. P., Novak, J. d., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). does training of self-regulated learning facilitate students learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523-535. azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, d. (2004). does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344-370. azevedo, R., Cuthrie, J. T., & Seibert, d. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in forstering students conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 15-30. Bangert-drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. a., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238. Barab, S. a., Young, M. F., & Wang, J. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3), 283-309. Box, G. E. P. (1954). Some theorems on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems. Annals of Statistics, 25, 290-302. Butler, d. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281. Chularut, P., & deBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-263. dabbach, N., & Kitsantas, a. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33, 513-540. doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. B. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109118. dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, Pa: Learning Services. dwyer, F. M., & Lamberski, R. J. (1977). The human heart: Parts of the heart, circulation of blood and cycle of blood pressure. Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Spiro, R. J. (2001). Learners (mis)understanding of important and difficult concepts. In K. d. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 349-375). Menlo Park, Ca: aaaI/MIT Press. Friend, R. (1999). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3-24.

24

Lee, Lim and Grabowski

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In d. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In d. H. Jonassen & association for Educational Communications and Technology. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719-743). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the learning sciences, 15(1), 53-61. Jacobs, J. W., & dempsey, J. V. (1993). Simulation and gaming: Fidelity, feedback, and motivation. In J. V. dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regualted learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24-33. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research, 94, 292-300. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (in press). Generative learning: Principles and implications for making meaning. In M. Spector & association for Educational Communications and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of research and educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (1988). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267-301. Pintrich, P. R., david, a. F. S., Teresa, G., & Wilbert, J. M. (1991). a manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Technical Report No. 91-B-004. Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, d. a. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. Rickards, J. P. (1979). adjunct post-questions in text: a critical review of methods and processes. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 181196. Rickards, J. P., & august, G. J. (1975). Generative underlining strategies in prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860865. Roll, I., Baker, R. S., aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Modeling students metacognitive errors in two intelligent tutoring systems.

Generative Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Feedback

25

In L. ardissono, P. Brna & a. Mitrovic (Eds.), User modeling 2005 (pp. 367-376). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5-9. Shapiro, a. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(2), 143-167. Shapiro, a. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159-189. Tergan, S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 209-235. Toothacker, L. E. (1993). Multiple comparisons procedures. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 327-353. Winne, P. H., Nesbit, J. C., Kumar, V., Hadwin, a. F., Lajoie, S. P., azevedo, R., et al. (2006). Supporting self-regulated learning with study software: The learning kit project. Tech., Inst., Cognition and Learning, 3, 105-113. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 8795. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345376. Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. Elementary School Journal, 92, 167182. Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531541. Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). development of self-regulated academic learning: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 307-313. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: an analysis of exemplary instructional models. In d. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Guilford Press. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, d. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum associates Publishers.