Andrew Stephens
SED 625SC
9/16/06
Dr. Rivas
Current Event #1
“Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on
Learning”
Gregory Schraw, Kent J. Crippen and Kendall Hartley
This article discusses the recent research on student self-regulation in the science
classroom through metacognition. The article is divided into two main parts that discuss
the types of self-regulation and the instructional strategies that promote self-regulation in
the classroom. Cognition, metacognition, and motivation are the three factors that the
authors consider the parts of self-regulated learning. Inquiry based learning,
collaborative support, strategy and problem solving instruction, the construction of
mental models, the use of technology to support learning, and the role of personal beliefs
are the six instructional strategies discussed that help students reach the said goal. These
strategies were chosen based on research of the past ten years and the important role they
play in fostering self-regulation.
Schraw, Crippen and Hartley present a strong argument for the development of
self-regulated learners. In addition, they bridge the gap between cognitive strategies,
metacognitive control, and motivational beliefs to paint the picture of a more selfregulating autonomous student. It seems necessary for science teachers to help develop
this brand of student in the capitalistic culture of the American educational system where
students are passed on from grade to grade with little to no longitudinal support or
tracking.
While I needed little convincing of the need for self-regulated learners, I needed
more convincing of the strategies to get them there. The strength of this paper lies in the
second section on the six strategies for developing increased learning and metacognitive
life-long learning skills. The strategies are clearly presented with their general purpose,
methods of implementation, examples of strategies, and barriers towards their
implementation. These research proven strategies overlap, which snowballs their
strengths. For example, the use of technology can help students check their mental
models, simplify their inquiry based learning so they can focus on the big picture, or
increase collaborative support through high tech communication.
The weaknesses of the article’s ideas include a couple significant barriers in the
implementation of strategies and the long-term focus that I deem unaligned with the
short-term focus of high stakes testing. To implement the strategies of inquiry based
learning or collaborative support at a school or district would require much professional
development that many schools lack and some teachers disdain. The funding issue is also
a problem for the advancement of technology in schools. The second fundamental
weakness of the research, as cited by the authors, is that some of the strategies, such as
inquiry based learning, may decrease achievement, when measured by traditional means,
in the short run. To exercise the aforementioned strategies would also take precious time
away from the all-important standards. While I agree with the long-term interests of the
authors, schools and teachers often focus on preparing students in the short-term for high
stakes tests such as the STAR, CAHSEE, or CST. Perhaps, this is only a weakness of the
education system and a strength of the article.
I believe the strategies outlined above will be very valuable in my own classroom
towards the end of developing metacognition and self-reliance in my students. I have
sometimes shortchanged them in the past when teaching them knowledge based ideas
over long-term learning strategies. I plan to pass these strategies along.