Abstracts - Earli

N 2131 August 2007 16:00 - 17:20Room: 0.100DPaper SessionSelf-regulationChair:Alexander E. M. G. Minnaert, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NetherlandsDo students’ goal orientations affect their evaluation of learning and teaching?Antti-Tuomas Pulkka, University of Helsinki, FinlandMarkku Niemivirta, University of Helsinki, FinlandThe purpose of this study was to establish whether students with different achievement goalorientation profiles evaluate their learning and teaching differently. A two-step cluster analysiswas used to classify 263 1st and 2nd year students of Finnish National Defence University on thebasis of their mastery-intrinsic, mastery-extrinsic, performance-approach, performance-avoidanceand avoidance goal-orientations. Analysis of variance was used to examine between-groupdifferences in the evaluation of learning and teaching. Preliminary results indicated significantdifferences between the identified three groups of students on their ratings of interest, the student’sown activities, the student’s activeness, pedagogical materials and the teacher’s activities.Compared to the others, and especially to students with an indifferent or avoidance-focused goalorientation profile, the mastery-oriented students were most positive in every aspect. The findingsof this study add to our understanding of the associations between students` personalcharacteristics and how they perceive learning and teaching and the learning environment.Instructional implications will be discussed.Task definition as a facet of self-regulated learningDianne Jamieson-Noel, Simon Fraser University, CanadaTheoretically task definition is one of the main components of self-regulated learning and isimportant because one’s representation of the task directs cognitive and metacognitive activities.Fifty-eight undergraduate students taking an undergraduate instructional psychology courseparticipated in a semester-long examination of how students constructed and refined their taskunderstanding. Students created a studying portfolio consisting of detailed descriptions about andreflections on strategic processes they used to complete two writing projects. Initial taskrepresentations varied in terms of breadth and depth. For breadth, students selected informationfrom the design project description of different grain sizes. Students with greater depth not onlysearched and selected information from the task, but they actively assembled elements of the taskand monitored how those components fit with one another. Most students set goals and createdplans; however, not all goals or plans were framed in light of criteria that would foster selfregulatedlearning. To revise task understanding, students metacognitively monitored theirprocesses and outcomes of learning activities, which updated information about task, cognitive,and motivational conditions. This additional information afforded opportunities for students toreassess the discrepancy between the initial state and the goal state and determine next steps toreach task goals. Although students may have recognized the need to change their approaches,they often failed to engage in effective metacognitive control to adapt approaches to learning.Future research should strive to create new measures for task understanding, and track how– 765 –