Zimmerman, B. J., Moylan, A., Hudesman, J., White, N., & Flugman, B. (2011). Psychological Test and Measurement Modeling, 53(1), 141–160. https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/CASE/enhancing_self_reflection.pdf.
Reviewed: February 2024
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty Practice Guide
(findings for Self-regulated learning instruction – Zimmerman et al, 2011)
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final exam test score |
Self-regulated learning instruction – Zimmerman et al, 2011 vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Completers;
|
73.18 |
58.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed the COMPASS |
Self-regulated learning instruction – Zimmerman et al, 2011 vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
47.00 |
27.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed college math |
Self-regulated learning instruction – Zimmerman et al, 2011 vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
25.00 |
13.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed developmental math |
Self-regulated learning instruction – Zimmerman et al, 2011 vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
50.00 |
32.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The students are located in the United States in an urban public technological college.
100% of students in the sub-sample of developmental education students were enrolled in developmental mathematics courses. Student demographic data for this sub-sample were not provided, e.g. students at different levels of developmental mathematics.
This was a "semester-long classroom intervention" designed to enhance students' self-reflection through instructor modeling of error correction, guided self-reflection opportunities as part of formative assessment, and an incentive system that rewards subsequent attempts at learning. Instructors of self-regulated learning were trained at the beginning of the semester and participated in weekly follow-up meetings to review implementation by instructors.
The comparison condition received "conventional instruction" in their respective developmental education courses (abstract).
Teachers implementing self-regulated learning techniques were trained before the semester and with follow-up meetings. Implementation fidelity was rigorously assessed in intervention and comparison classrooms on three dimensions: 1) instructor modeling of error correction 2) guided self-reflection opportunities as part of formative assessment, 3) incentive system that rewards subsequent attempts at learning. Investigators observed all classrooms and found that intervention group instructors displayed a significantly higher frequency of targeted behaviors than did the comparison group instructors. The classroom observation component not only documented implementation fidelity, but provided instructors with accountability mechanism to teaching the intervention strategies.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Hudesman, John; Crosby, Sara; Flugman, Bert; Issac, Sharlene; Everson, Howard; Clay, Dorie B. (2013). Using Formative Assessment and Metacognition to Improve Student Achievement. Journal of Developmental Education, v37 n1 p2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-13.
Reviewed: November 2021
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final exam test score |
Self-regulated learning (SRL) instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Developmental math course;
|
73.18 |
58.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
math exam self-efficacy |
Self-regulated learning (SRL) instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Developmental math course;
|
3.55 |
3.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Computer Adaptive Placement Assessment and Support System (COMPASS) Mathematics Test (% passed) |
Self-regulated learning (SRL) instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Developmental math course;
|
47.00 |
27.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed developmental math course |
Self-regulated learning (SRL) instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Developmental math course;
|
50.00 |
32.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in an urban, public technological college in the United States.
The combined study sample for the developmental and introductory college level math course was 52% male and 48% female.
The intervention consisted of a semester-long (15-week) classroom intervention designed to enhance students' self-reflection through three dimensions: (1) instructor modeling of error correction, (2) guided self-reflection opportunities as part of formative assessment, and (3) incentive system that rewards subsequent attempts at learning.
The comparison group received business-as-usual instruction in their math course.
Instructors assigned to the intervention group (self-regulated learning) attended initial meetings before the beginning of the semester, which included information about academic self-regulation, strategic modeling, and a formative assessment process that coupled frequent feedback on problem-solving quizzes with grade-point incentives for in-depth correction of errors on self-reflection forms. Periodic monitoring occurred throughout the semester. Observers used a checklist that focused on strategy instruction and error analysis, specifically whether the instructor made deliberate errors during presentation, encouraged students to demonstrate problem-solving and error detection strategies, and encouraged students to verbalize error detection and problem-solving strategies. Observation results were used during weekly support meetings with the instructors.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube