Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
with our current research (e.g., Azevedo, 2007, 2008; Witherspoon, Azevedo, &
D'Mello, 2008). The model allows researchers to derive testable hypotheses regard-
ing the complex nature of metacognitive monitoring and control, as well as the
complex cycles that a learner and system undergo.
Winne and Hadwin (1998, 2008) posit that learning occurs in four basic phases:
task definition, goal-setting and planning, studying tactics, and adaptations to
metacognition. Winne and Hadwin's SRL model also differs from others in that it
hypothesizes that an information-processing (IP)-influenced set of processes occurs
within each phase. Using the acronym COPES, Winne and Hadwin describe each
phase in terms of the interaction of a person's conditions, operations, products, eval-
uations, and standards. All of the terms except operations are kinds of information
that a person uses or generates during learning. It is within this COPES architecture
that the work of each phase is completed. Thus, the model complements other SRL
models by introducing a more complex description of the processes underlying each
phase.
Through monitoring, a person compares products with standards to determine if
phase objectives have been met or if further work remains to be done. These com-
parisons are called cognitive evaluations; a poor fit between products and standards
may lead a person to enact control over the learning operations to refine the prod-
uct, revise the conditions and standards, or both. This is the object-level focus of
monitoring. However, this monitoring also has a metalevel or metacognitive focus.
A student may believe that a particular learning task is easy, and thus translate this
belief into a standard in Phase 2. However, when iterating in Phase 3, the learn-
ing product might be consistently evaluated as unacceptable in terms of object-level
standards. This would initiate metacognitive monitoring that determines that this
metalevel information (in this case task difficulty) does not match the previously
set standard that the task is easy. At this point, a metacognitive control strategy
might be initiated where that particular standard is changed (“this task is hard”),
which might in turn affect other standards created during the goal setting of Phase
2. These changes to goals from Phase 2 may include a review of past material or the
learning of a new study strategy. Thus, the model is a “recursive, weakly sequenced
system” (Winne & Hadwin, 1998, p. 281) where the monitoring of products and
standards within one phase can lead to updates of products from previous phases.
The inclusion of monitoring and control in the cognitive architecture allows these
processes to influence each phase of self-regulated learning.
While there is no typical cycle, most learning involves re-cycling through the
cognitive architecture until a clear definition of the task has been created. The next
phase produces learning goals and the best plan to achieve them, which leads to
the enacting of strategies to begin learning. The products of learning (e.g., under-
standing of the circulatory system) are compared against standards that include the
overall accuracy of the product, the learner's beliefs about what needs to be learned,
and other factors such as efficacy and time restraints. If the product does not fit
the standard adequately, then further learning operations are initiated, perhaps with
changes to conditions such as setting aside more time for studying. Finally, after the
