Gagne

Designing Systems That Train Learning Ability: From Theory to Practice
Author(s): Sharon J. Derry and Debra A. Murphy

Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 1-39
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170285 .
Accessed: 24/03/2014 10:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Review of Educational Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 201.221.122.55 on Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:41:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review
of
Educational Research
Spring,
1986, Vol. 56, No. 1, Pp. 1-39
Designing Systems
That Train
Learning Ability:
From
Theory
to Practice
Sharon J.
Derry
Florida State
University
and
Debra A.
Murphy
University of Mississippi
Medical Center
ABSTRACT.
Empirical
and theoretical evidence is
presented
to
support
the
conclusion that
improvement
of
learning ability
is
an
important
and
viable educational
goal. However,
the
improvement
of
learning ability
necessitates
development
not
only
of
specific learning skills,
which we
know how to
teach,
but also an executive control mechanism that auto-
matically
accesses and combines
learning
skills whenever
they
are needed.
Metacognitive
theorists are
currently investigating
evidence that some
executive skills can be
imparted through
direct
training. However,
a theme
that
emerges repeatedly
in our review is that executive
learning
skills
cannot be trained
easily
or
by
direct instruction
alone,
but must be
developed gradually
and automated over an extended
period
of time. It
follows that
genuine improvement
of academic
aptitude
is not
likely
to
result from
anything
less than a
thoughtful, systematic
curriculum that
complements
direct
training
in
learning strategies,
and
thereby "engineers"
the
gradual
evolution of
important
executive control skills.
Bloom
(1984)
has issued an
important
and
interesting challenge
for educational
technology:
to
identify high-impact training
methods that will enable entire classes
to attain levels of achievement that can at
present
be reached
only
under the best
instructional
condition,
one-to-one
tutoring.
In
defining
the standard for
impact,
Bloom
employed
the "2
sigma"
criterion
because,
with
good tutoring,
the
average
student can achieve two standard deviations above the
average
control student
taught
with conventional methods. He states that an
important
task of research
and instruction is to seek
ways
of
accomplishing
this under more economical
conditions than the one-to-one
tutoring,
which is too
costly
for societies to bear.
"If the research on the 2
sigma problem yields practical
methods ... it would be
an educational contribution of the
greatest magnitude" (pp. 4-5,
italics in
original).
One desirable answer to the 2
sigma quest
would be to boost the
impact
of
conventional instruction
through greater
and better efforts to
improve
students'
learning
abilities. This
possibility
carries tremendous
appeal,
not
only
because it
points
to added
permanent
benefits for learners that
might
extend
beyond
a
targeted
instructional
program,
but also because it
represents
at least a
partial response
to
widespread public
and official concern that American schools are not
doing
a
good
job
of
teaching
students how to think. The idea seems
logistically feasible,
since
1
DERRY AND MURPHY
boosting
educational
gains by improving
learners themselves
suggests
no massive
overhaul or reform of
existing
curricula.
Furthermore, cognitive theory
and research
provide ample support
for the faith that
learning ability
can be
improved by training
students in what Brown and
Campione (1982)
have called "the skills of academic
intelligence"-learning strategies.
Here the
phrase learning strategy
will
signify
the collection of mental tactics
employed by
an individual in a
particular learning
situation to facilitate
acquisition
of
knowledge
or skill. For
example,
to
help
maintain motivation and aid
organized
recall of facts while
learning job procedures
from a
training manual,
an
employee
might
use a
study strategy
that combines
techniques
such as
positive self-talk,
outlining,
and the use of mnemonic devices that enhance
memory.
To
study
for a
mathematics
exam,
the same
person might employ positive
self-talk
again,
but this
time in combination with different
study
tactics that are
particularly
suited to
math,
such as
categorizing
to-be-learned homework
problems
or
practicing
essential
arithmetic
operations.
Thus
conceived, learning strategies
lie within the domain
of"cognitive strategies"
(Bruner, Goodnow,
&
Austin, 1956; Gagne, 1980a),
a term used
by many
research-
ers to describe a broader
family
of intellectual
capabilities
that enables individuals
to exercise executive control over how
they
think in
problem-solving
situations.
When the
problem
is how to learn
something,
the individual accesses
previously
acquired attitudes, ideas,
and skills that underlie
study behavior,
and uses these to
construct a
learning strategy.
Snowman and McCown
(1984)
have
distinguished
the
learning strategy
from the
learning
tactic. Whereas a
learning strategy
is described as the overall
plan
one
formulates for
dealing
with a
learning task,
a
learning
tactic is defined as a more
specific
skill one uses in service of the
strategy.
This is the
terminology adopted
in
this
paper
and in our work with
military
recruits. To avoid
confusion, however,
we
explicitly point
out that other researchers
(e.g., Dansereau, 1978, 1985; Pressley,
Borkowski,
&
O'Sullivan, 1984)
have used the terms
metastrategy
and
metacogni-
tive
strategy
in reference to what we have defined as a
learning strategy.
The terms
task-specific strategy
or
simply strategy
often are used to describe what we
prefer
to call a tactic.
Over the
past
25
years, literally
hundreds of studies and reviews have
investigated
the
utility
of
training
students to use a
particular
tactic or set of tactics for the
type
of
learning
task under
investigation (e.g.,
Anderson &
Armbruster, 1984;
Snowman
&
McCown, 1984).
Tactics that have been studied
thoroughly by
researchers
interested in verbal
learning
and
memory
include
underlining, summarizing,
mne-
monic
devices, questioning,
note
taking,
and text
analysis.
Researchers
investigating
problem solving
have studied tactics such as
goal identification, diagramming
and
labeling, working backward,
and
working
forward.
Many
of these
investigations
are not
quite "strategy studies,"
as we use the
term,
because
they
limit the
degree
of executive
analysis, planning,
and tactic selection
actually required
of
subjects
to
perform
criterial
learning
tasks.
Relatively
few studies have
attempted
what we would term
strategy training,
although
interest in this area is
gaining rapidly.
A
great
deal of
strategies
research
currently
is
being inspired by popular cognitive
and
developmental
theories
(e.g.,
Brown, 1978, 1980; Brown, Campione,
&
Day, 1981; Flavell, 1979;
Flavell &
Wellman, 1977),
which have focused attention on the fact that immature learners
2
SYSTEMS THAT TRAIN LEARNING ABILITY
are deficient not
only
in the
variety
of
learning
tactics that
they possess,
but also in
their
knowledge
about the usefulness of the tactics
they
know and in their
higher
order skills of
planning, implementing,
and
monitoring
the success of their
learning
efforts. This work has
helped
foster
optimism among
researchers
regarding
the
possibility
of
helping
students
acquire
these skills
through training.
Despite
favorable
auspices
that foreshadow an
important
role for
learning
strat-
egies training
in
many
educational
settings,
the fact remains that no real-world
educational
program designed
to train a
range
of
learning
skills has
yet
achieved
the 2
sigma
standard for
impact
on a
general
measure of academic achievement.
There have been a number of
excellent, cognitively
based efforts to train students
in the use of
study
tactics and
strategies (e.g., Dansereau, 1985;
Dansereau et
al.,
1979;
McCombs &
Dobrovolny, 1982). Typical findings
were obtained
by
Mc-
Combs and
Dobrovolny (1982),
who
reported
data for
military
recruits
indicating
an educational
impact
of about .57
sigma.
Dansereau et al.
(1979)
also obtained
an
average
effect size of
approximately
.57
sigma
in their
experiments
with
college
students. A
very respectable
1
sigma impact
on achievement was
reported by
Pflaum, Walberg, Karegianes,
and Rasher
(1980) following
a
meta-analysis
of
elementary reading programs
that included
training
in
study strategies.
These effect
sizes are
promising
and
justify optimism,
but
why
are
they
not
larger?
This was the
question motivating
our review.
Gagne (1980a, 1980b; personal communication, 1985)
has
suggested
one
possi-
bility.
He believes that because construction of
learning strategies
is a form of
problem-solving ability, learning strategies probably
cannot be
"taught"
in the usual
sense of the term.
Although
it is
clearly possible
to train various
attitudes, concepts,
and
study
tactics that are combined to form
learning strategies, strategic thinking
capability
itself is much more difficult to
impart.
The executive controller that
accesses and combines relevant
prior knowledge
also must be
developed,
and for
most adults this
ability
has evolved
slowly through years
of
schooling
rather than
direct
training. Gagne argues
that standard methods of direct instruction cannot
train executive skills.
There remains the
possibility
that
higher impact
instructional
systems might
be
designed
to
"engineer"
the
development
of
strategic thinking
skills that cannot be
trained
directly.
This review of
cognitive
and instructional theories
represents
a
search for such a method. Our aim was to achieve a
useful, conceptual integration
of critical ideas and theories that have
important implications
for
strategies training,
on the
assumption
that an
integrated
view can
help
administrators and
project
directors concerned with the
development
of
learning ability. Representative
re-
search related to these theories is
summarized,
rather than
exhaustively reviewed,
and
implications
for the
design
of
strategies training systems
are
pointed
out. In
addition,
our
paper
outlines a
prototype
model for
training learning strategies
that
feasibly
could be
implemented, tested,
and refined on a
large scale,
either as
computer-assisted
instruction or as a somewhat less
promising paper
curriculum.
Toward a
Theory
for
Training Learning Ability
In this section we describe three
well-developed
theoretical
positions
that have
for the
training
of
learning ability.
One
point
of
view,
derived from
Gagne's (1985; Gagne
&
Briggs, 1974)
instructional
theory,
assumes
that
learning ability
is
partly
trainable intellectual skill and
partly strategic thinking
3
DERRY AND MURPHY
capability
that must evolve as a function of
experience
and
intelligence.
A second
perspective
is based on
Sternberg's intelligence theory (1977, 1985)
and his
guide-
lines for intellectual skills
training (1983).
This
point
of view
implies
that
learning
ability
is a form of
intelligence
that has trainable
components.
A third
point
of
view is based on
metacognitive theory
and related work in
cognitive-developmental
psychology,
which
proposes
that as
learning ability develops,
there evolves an
awareness of the
thinking process
and a
memory
store
containing
a
library
of
learning
tactics and
knowledge
about the
utility
and use of those tactics. The
training perspective
that is a
consequence
of this review
merges
these
positions.
Gagne's Training Theory
Gagne's theory (e.g., 1980a, 1980b, 1985) distinguishes
the domain of
cognitive
strategies, including
the subdomain of
learning strategies,
from four other
types
of
learning
outcomes that
represent typical goals
of
schooling: (a) attitudes,
such as
patriotism
or
valuing good grades; (b)
motor
skills,
like those that underlie hand-
writing, typing,
or
sports; (c)
verbal
information, exemplified by organized
collec-
tions of facts and
concepts
that make
up disciplines
such as
history
or
psychology;
and
(d)
intellectual
skills, capabilities
based on
knowing
rules of
symbol manipu-
lation,
such as
language production, solving algebra problems,
or
outlining
a book
chapter. Cognitive strategies
are viewed as
higher
mental
processes
that
acquire,
access, organize,
and use the other four
types
of
knowledge
in a
goal-directed
manner. Intellectual
skills,
verbal
information, attitudes,
and motor skills
comprise
most of what is
taught
in schools. Instruction in
higher
mental
processes
is rare
(Bloom, 1984), possibly
because
training
methods are
relatively
new and
unproven.
Some researchers
(e.g.,
Brown &
Campione, 1982;
R. E.
Mayer, personal
com-
munication, 1984)
have
questioned
the
validity
of
separating cognitive strategies
and intellectual skills as
distinctly
different forms of
learning.
Greeno and Simon
(1984)
have cited much evidence that
strategic thinking
is in fact
rule-guided
behavior,
and have
expressed
faith that these rules
eventually
will be discovered
through
research. If this is
true,
then
perhaps cognitive strategies
can be
analyzed
and
taught, exactly
like intellectual skills are trained. Advanced
technologies
for
training
intellectual skills
already
exist
(e.g., Gagne
&
Briggs, 1974). Thus,
if the
distinction between
cognitive strategies
and intellectual skills can be reduced to a
mere semantic
quibble, good
methods for
training learning strategies
are available
now.
However,
if the
ability
to formulate
learning strategies
is not a trainable
intellectual
skill,
then
radically
new
training approaches may
be
necessary.
According
to
Gagne (1980a, 1980b),
there are five
types
of intellectual skills that
can be trained with conventional instructional
technology (e.g., Gagne
&
Briggs,
1974): discriminations,
concrete
concepts,
defined
concepts, rules,
and
higher
order
rules. For
example,
the
higher
order skill of
"making change"
can be trained if
students first
acquire
the subordinate rules of arithmetic and the
concepts
that
allow them to
identify
coins
by
name and value. The
ability
to construct a text
outline is another
example
of a trainable intellectual skill. To learn this
skill,
students first must master
prerequisite concepts
and rules that enable them to
differentiate between main and subordinate ideas.
Skill-specific concepts
and
rules,
which are isolated
through
an instructional
analysis
of the to-be-learned
operation,
become either the
entering prerequisites
or
the
subject-matter objectives
for intellectual skills instruction.
However,
this
subject
4
matter
typically
does not include
separate
or direct instruction in how to conduct
the
specific cognitive processes actually
involved in
making discriminations,
ac-
quiring
and
recognizing concepts,
or
remembering
rules. Nor does the student
receive much direct
training
in how to combine the
target
skill with others to solve
problems.
The
objective
of instruction is not to teach or
develop thinking processes
as
generalizable skills,
but to facilitate efficient achievement of the "terminal
objective" (Gagne
&
Briggs, 1974), performance
of the
target
skill itself. Once
acquired,
the
target
skill can be further
tuned, speeded,
and
ultimately
made
automatic
through practice (Gagne, 1984).
Many
intellectual
skills, including study skills,
are thus
acquired
and
practiced
throughout life, resulting
in
gradual,
incidental
development
of their skill-embedded
cognitive processes,
as well as the
capability
to transfer entire intellectual skills into
new situations. But
generalized thinking capability,
that
is, processing ability
not
tied to a
particular
intellectual
skill,
must be
inductively
derived
by
students as
incidental
learning
over
years
of
practice. Similarly,
the
cognitive
mechanisms that
enable students to construct
appropriate learning strategies
for an endless
variety
of academic
assignments
cannot be conceived
totally
as
products
of direct
learning
strategies training. Rather, they
must be viewed as incidental
by-products
of
practice
and
experience.
Implications for training learning strategies.
From
Gagne's point
of
view,
the
ability
to formulate
situationally
relevant
learning strategies
is a form of
strategic
problem-solving capability
that
probably
cannot be
taught effectively using
tradi-
tional methods.
Although learning strategies employ
trainable intellectual skills
such as
outlining,
use of
mnemonics,
and other
generalizable study behaviors,
other
aspects
of
learning ability seemingly
must evolve
gradually
as a function of
intelligence
and
experience.
These other
aspects
include a flexible executive con-
troller that can
access, select, integrate,
and monitor
task-appropriate learning
processes.
The executive
capability
that controls
learning appears
to be
rule-guided
in a heuristic
sense,
but there is still much to learn about the rules.
Consequently,
the rules of executive control
presently
constitute tenuous
subject
matter for task
analysis
or direct instruction. The
challenge
for
experimental
research is to discover
more about the rules of executive control. But even when these rules are
fully
understood, impact
on
learning ability
is still
likely
to
require
instructional
systems
that
planfully engineer
the
gradual
evolution of executive
learning
skills.
Sternberg's Theory: Implications for Training Learning Ability
A second
body
of
theory
and research that has
for the
training
of
learning ability
is
Sternberg's
work. He has
developed
a
logic
and
methodology
for
isolating component thinking processes
that underlie certain task
domains-solving
the
types
of
analogies
that
appear
on standardized
IQ tests,
for
example (Sternberg, 1977; 1979).
He also has
suggested guidelines
for
design
of
process-oriented training
to
improve
the
speed
and
facility
with which learners
carry
out basic
thinking operations (Sternberg, 1983). Sterberg's perspective
on
training departs
from
Gagne's
instructional
theory. According
to the
Sternberg
model,
the
purpose
of "intellectual skills
training"
is not to
develop
intellectual
skills as
Gagne
would define
them,
but to
improve
the
general processing
intelli-
gence
of the learner. To
Sternberg,
an intellectual skill is a chronometric series of
discrete
cognitive processes, including
lower and
higher processes.
He does not
5
DERRY AND MURPHY
draw a clear-cut distinction between
training
an intellectual skill itself and devel-
oping
the
processing capability
that
operates
with or
upon
that
knowledge.
Gagne's
instructional
theory provides explicit
direction for how to train
important
intellectual skills
(i.e., study skills)
that bolster academic
performance.
The Stern-
berg guidelines
offer a less
precise training theory,
but his
perspective
is
important
because it underscores the
importance
of
improving
the
specific thinking operations
that underlie the intellectual skills of
learning
and the executive control mechanisms
that use them.
Learning strategies
curricula
conceptualized according
to the Stern-
berg
model are
intelligence improvement
efforts.
Sternberg's
research indicates that
intelligence-improvement programs
should offer at least three
types
of
training:
microcomponent, macrocomponent,
and
metacomponent training.
Microcomponent training.
This
type
of
training directly
and
separately
focuses
on
specific information-processing
subskills that underlie whatever
learning
tasks
the student
eventually
must
perform.
These include what Newell and Simon
(1972)
have called
"elementary
information
processes."
An
example
of a
microcomponent
subskill involved in
reading
would be
letter-group perception speed.
Another
example
of a
microcomponent necessary
for
performance
of mathematical com-
putations
is recall of number facts from
long-term memory.
As documented in a
recent review
by Salisbury (1984),
research indicates that in order for students to
perform complex
intellectual
tasks,
such as
reading, studying,
or
solving
math
problems, they
first must learn to
rapidly
and
automatically perform many
of the
underlying
subskills.
Microcomponent
deficiencies have been
implicated
as
prob-
able causes for
poor performance
on tests of verbal and
reading
skills
(Hunt,
Lunneborg,
&
Lewis, 1975; Lesgold
&
Resnick, 1982)
and in mathematics
(Brown
&
Burton, 1978).
Because
microcomponents
must be
performed
with
great speed
and
automaticity,
instructional
technologies
based on
logical analysis
or
explanation
of the
target
skill
are useless as
training
methods.
However,
research indicates that
microcomponents
can be
developed
and
improved
with intensive drill and
practice,
and a
good
computer-based technology
for
training microcomponents appears
to be
emerging.
Fredericksen
(1983),
for
example,
has
developed intelligent computer games
that
successfully improve reading microcomponents,
such as
letter-group perception
speed, through
continuous
computer-controlled practice
and feedback. A
prototype
model for
sophisticated computer-based
drill and
practice
has been
conceptualized
by Salisbury (1984),
who has
argued
that the
computer
is
possibly
the
only
instructional medium with
capabilities
that can train
minute,
but
important,
microcomponent
subskills.
Macrocomponent training.
A second
goal
of
intelligence training designed
ac-
cording
to
Sternberg's theory
is to facilitate
development
of
relatively complex
processing systems designated
as
macrocomponents.
These are
groups
of
compo-
nent
processes
that
frequently
are chunked and thus can be viewed as one holistic
skill.
Examples
of
macrocomponents
related to
learning strategies
include note
taking
and
outlining
skills.
Although
the rules that bind
microcomponent processes
into
macrocomponents
are not
entirely
invariant across
persons
and situations
(Sternberg, Ketron,
&
Powell, 1982), macrocomponents
do exhibit a
significant degree
of
nonarbitrary,
rule-bound structure.
They
are
subject
to
logical analysis
and
explanation,
and
therefore can be trained with state-of-the-art instructional
technologies,
such as the
6
Gagne
and
Briggs (1974)
method
previously
discussed.
Macrocomponents
almost
exactly parallel Gagne's description
of intellectual skills
(1980a, 1980b).
Schools
have
successfully taught many types
of
macrocomponents
for
years,
and there is
reason to
suspect
that these same
technologies
would work as well for
any learning
skill that can be
subjected
to task
analysis.
Metacomponent training.
A third
goal
of
intelligence training, according
to the
Sternberg guidelines,
is to
engineer
an executive control mechanism that
flexibly
and
rapidly responds
to
problem-solving
situations
by mobilizing
and
organizing
relevant micro- and
macrocomponents. Sternberg
has
argued
that
programs
at-
tempting
to train a form of
intelligence
"should
provide explicit training
in both
executive and nonexecutive information
processing,
as well as interactions between
the two kinds of information
processing" (Sternberg, 1983, p. 9). Although
the
issue of whether the executive function that controls
any
form of
problem-solving
behavior can be trained has
long
been a source of
debate,
the current
prevailing
consensus
among psychologists
and educators is
generally optimistic (e.g.,
Greeno
&
Simon, 1984;
Tuma &
Reif, 1980). Still,
the
question
of how to train executive
control is a
major
issue.
The
metastrategy approach:
One
approach
that has been used in
training
learn-
ing strategies
involves
teaching
students to use
domain-general
heuristic
planning
models,
or
"metastrategies" (Dansereau, 1978, 1985).
For
example,
Dansereau and
his associates have
taught college
students to use
MURDER,
a mnemonic which
stands for a
sequence
of
steps
in a
general study strategy:
set
your Mood,
read for
Understanding, Recall, Digest
information
(correct recall, amplify
and
store),
Expand knowledge through self-inquiry,
and Review mistakes.
Specific study
skills
associated with each
metastrategy step
also are
taught: Mood-setting may
involve
positive
self-talk and
progressive relaxation; amplification
could be
accomplished
through imaging
or
paraphrasing,
and so on. The
relationship
between Dansereau's
metastrategy
and its related subskills
parallels Sternberg's (1983)
recommended
link between executive and nonexecutive
information-processing
routines.
General
problem-solving
models:
Many
researchers have
suggested
that
during
learning
and
problem solving,
the
"intelligent"
executive controller functions
according
to a
general plan
that includes
steps
similar to the
following: (a) analysis
and
goal identification, (b) planning
a
strategy, (c) carrying
out the
strategy, (d)
checking
results of the
strategy,
and
(e) modifying
the
strategy (e.g., Baron, 1981;
Bransford, 1984; Hayes, 1981; Polya, 1957).
The
advantage
of
training planning
models, according
to Baron
(1981),
is that
they
enable students to control the
stylistic propensities
in their
thinking.
This idea is
applicable
to the
training
of
learning strategies
if one is
willing
to
accept
the
assumption
that
people possessing
the same
learning capabilities
can still differ
significantly
in their individual tend-
encies to
employ
them. Baron
(1981)
has
suggested
that failure to use available
skills
may
be related to certain alterable
personality traits,
such as
impulsiveness,
which is the
propensity
to
respond rapidly
in situations that would benefit from
reflective
thinking.
He believes that such
stylistic propensities
should be
targeted
in
training because,
unlike intellectual
capacity, cognitive style
is to some extent under
voluntary
control and is therefore
subject
to influence
through
education.
Meichenbaum's
approach:
Another allied
approach
to
training
executive control
(Meichenbaum, 1980;
Meichenbaum &
Asarow, 1979)
is based on work that
demonstrates a
significant relationship
between
and attitude.
7
DERRY AND MURPHY
Students
may
know when and how to
outline,
take
notes,
and use mnemonic
memory devices; but,
unless
they
also
develop
a desire to
employ
these
skills,
a
desire that emanates from
feelings
of
efficacy regarding
the
learning
skills and their
potential, generalized learning ability
will not
improve. Developmentally
immature
learners often exhibit
production deficiencies,
the failure to access and use
process-
ing capabilities
that
they may actually possess (Brown, 1974).
Production deficien-
cies
may
be due to
processing deficits,
such as the learner's failure to
recognize
that
a
particular
set of skills would be useful in a certain
learning situation,
but a desire
to
perform may
be
missing
as well. Several
learning strategies programs (e.g.,
Dansereau, 1985;
McCombs &
Dobrovolny, 1982)
have
incorporated
motivational
training
based on Meichenbaum's clinical
attitude-altering technique
called
"cog-
nitive
restructuring."
This method teaches a
step-by-step metastrategy
and
specific
mood control tactics. Evidence in favor of this
technique
is
promising
and is
reviewed in a later section.
Metacognitive
awareness: These are
training
methods that endeavor
by
various
means to increase the learner's store of
metacognitive knowledge,
which includes
learning processes
and information about those
processes. Programs
that train
study
techniques
and the rules for when to
employ
them
represent
an
attempt
to
develop
the executive control function.
Emerging
models of
metacognitive processing
provide
a basis for the
design
of
metacomponent training.
This
approach
is accorded
some detail in a
separate
section on
metacognitive theory.
Empirical
basis
for metacomponent
training: More research on the
metastrategy
and related
techniques
is needed. The available
empirical
evidence
supporting
their
use is not
strong
at this time. A
learning strategies training program
that
incorporates
Dansereau's
metastrategy technique
has
produced statistically significant (though
modest) gains
in students' academic
performance (Dansereau
et
al., 1979), although
the
performance
variance attributable to the
metastrategy
method itself has not
been isolated and
reported.
Some
support
for the use of
metastrategies
can be
gleaned
from a review
by Belmont, Butterfield,
and Ferretti
(1982). They analyzed
121 studies of
attempts
to teach
cognitive
skills to
children,
7 of which
provided
step-by-step training
of executive control somewhat similar to the
metastrategy
method. Six of these 7 studies
reported
evidence of
generalized
transfer of
training,
presumably
due to
training
of executive control.
Relevant work in
cognitive psychology
does indicate that the
acquisition
of a
metastrategy
can
help
insure continued recall of
component strategies long
after
training.
A well-established fact of
memory
research is that recall of
high
order
contextual
categories effectively
cues even
long "forgotten" specific
memories. For
example, Tulving
and Psotka
(1971)
had subjects memorize a series of
categorized
word lists.
Delayed
recall for lists that were memorized first in the series was
extremely poor, presumably
due to interference caused
by subsequent learning.
However,
this interference was
virtually
eliminated when
subjects
were cued with
category
names. Bower and Reitman
(1972)
eliminated a similar form of
forgetting
by instructing subjects
to encode list words
using
a mnemonic device that
supplied
categorical
cues at the time of recall. Other studies have shown that
categorical
cues can even restore access to memories "lost" due to brain
damage (Marslen-
Wilson &
Teuber, 1975).
The
implication
for
strategy training
is that if students
are
prompted
to invoke a
metastrategy during
a
learning event,
this
general response
could cue an available
library
of more
specific processing techniques.
8
Cognitive
research also offers some caveats with
respect
to the use of too
many
metastrategies
in the
training
of executive
learning
skills. Interference and
apparent
forgetting
can occur when learners fail to
clearly
differentiate between two similar
sets of stimuli. Interference effects with list
learning
have been demonstrated
by
Underwood
(1964),
Postman and
Gray (1977),
and
many
others. Interference also
occurs in
learning
tasks that involve sentences
(Bobrow, 1970)
or stories that are
similar
(Lewis
&
Anderson, 1976).
This research is
important
because it
appears quite probable
that
throughout
their academic
careers,
more and more learners will be
exposed
to
many
different
metastrategies
that are nonidentical
yet conceptually
similar. More than 12 meta-
strategy planning
models of
differing complexity currently
are
being popularized
and used in various
training
contexts. These include not
only
the
techniques
described in this
review,
but also the well-known
SQ3R study
method
(Robinson,
1941),
Bransfords's
(1984)
IDEAL
problem solver,
and countless other
general
problem-solving
models. Kellis
(1985) recently analyzed
extant
problem-solving
models, ranging
in
complexity
from 4 to 12
steps,
and identified 4
conceptually
similar
steps
that were
present
in 10 different models. The
conceptually
related
models included those
proposed by
Baron
(1981),
Belmont et al.
(1982),
Bransford
(1984),
Brown
(1978), Hayes (1981), Polya (1957),
and Wallas
(1926).
The
prolif-
eration of
conceptually
similar
"metastrategies"
based on such models could result
in instructional conditions that cause confusion and interference.
Finally,
there is
Gagne's
caveat. He
points
out that
although
the effects of
continued
learning
and
practice
on
cognitive strategies
are not well
known,
there
is
ample
reason to
suppose
that executive skills have much in common with their
cousins,
the
procedural
skills
(Gagne, 1984).
For
procedural skills, important
processing changes
that lead to
speedy
retrieval and
accurate,
automatic
perform-
ance must continue well
beyond
the
stage
of initial
acquisition (Neves
&
Anderson,
1981;
Shiffrin &
Schneider, 1977).
Practice and
experience
are
likely
to be
equally
important
for the
development
of executive control.
Metacognitive Theory: Implications for Training Learning Ability
During
the
past
5
years
there has
developed
a
significant body
of literature
pertaining
to the role of
metacognition
in the
acquisition
and use of
learning
skills.
In this
context,
the term
metacognition
refers to learners' awareness and
knowledge
of their own
learning processes,
as well as their abilities and tendencies to control
those
processes during learning. Metacognitive theory currently
is
inspiring
much
research,
and thus
many
scholars are
contributing
to its refinement.
However,
John
Flavell
(e.g., 1979, 1981;
Flavell &
Wellman, 1977)
is often credited with
popular-
ization of the
terminology
and much
original theory development.
Ann Brown
(e.g.,
Baker &
Brown, 1984; Brown, 1978, 1980)
also has
published
several
influential theoretical statements
pertaining
to
metacognitive processes
involved in
the
monitoring
and
regulation
of
learning strategies.
Flavell's
(1979, 1981) theory
of
cognitive monitoring
consists of four
compo-
nents:
actions, goals, metacognitive experiences,
and
metacognitive knowledge.
The
model learner is assumed to select
cognitive
actions
(e.g., rehearsal)
in
pursuit
of
certain
learning goals (e.g., memorizing meanings
of
foreign words),
which lead to
metacognitive experiences (e.g.,
"I didn't learn
this
very well"),
that in turn refine
the student's store of
metacognitive knowledge
about
learning (e.g.,
"Rehearsal
9
DERRY AND MURPHY
isn't as
good
as the
keyword
method for this
type
of
task"). Thus,
Flavell's
theory
represents
an
attempt
to
operationalize
the
developmental process whereby learning
ability improves.
The issue raised here is how to
speed
and facilitate that
process.
To the extent that Flavell's assessment is
accurate,
it follows that there are four
general categories
of
training
that schools
might attempt:
(1) helping
learners build a
library
of
learning
tactics
(actions);
(2) training
students to
recognize
what
they
must learn
(goals);
(3) enhancing
the
frequency
and
quality
of
experiences
that lead to
insights
about
learning (metacognitive experiences);
and
(4) helping
learners build a store of information about the
utility
of
learning
tactics, including
when and how to use them
(metacognitive knowledge).
With
respect
to these
objectives,
there is a sense in which objective
1,
tactics
training,
is the least
problematic.
This is not to
say
that tactics
training
is
unimpor-
tant,
but to
acknowledge
that at
present
we have
good technologies
for
analyzing
and
training
these skills. Students of
nearly any age
and
ability
can be induced to
rehearse,
take
notes, outline,
and so
forth, although acquisition
of these behaviors
alone does not
necessarily
enhance
learning (e.g., Anderson, 1980; Brown, 1980;
Brown &
Smiley, 1978). According
to
metacognitive theory,
this is because
learning
ability
includes additional
metacognitive knowledge governing
how and when to
deploy
tactics. A correlative
relationship
between
knowledge
about
learning
and
learning ability
is
assumed,
and there is some
empirical
evidence to
support
that
assumption (e.g., Brown, 1978, 1980; Pressley
et
al., 1984).
We identified three
types
of
that have been trained: schema
knowledge,
verbal
knowledge
about
learning,
and
self-regulation procedures.
Schema
knowledge.
One
type
of
knowledge
that immature learners
appear
to
lack is schema
knowledge, cognitive
structures that serve as the basis for
compre-
hension
and, among
other
things,
delineate the
important
ideas that must be
remembered. The
ability
to
identify important
ideas in instruction is an
important
prerequisite
skill for
application
of mnemonic
techniques,
note
taking, self-ques-
tioning, outlining,
and
many
other
learning
tactics. Identification of what must be
learned is also a
prerequisite competency
for
higher
order forms of executive
control,
such as
goal-directed
use of tactics.
However,
Brown
(1978, 1980)
has cited
a wealth of
empirical
data
showing
that in
comparison
to successful adult
learners,
developmentally
immature learners are less concerned with
identifying
what
they
need to learn from
instruction,
and are
relatively
less sensitive to
grammatical
structure and other clues to
important
ideas in
expository
text.
A skill that often must be trained as a
prerequisite
to
training learning
skills is
how to
identify
main
ideas, regardless
of text
type.
Recent research
strongly
indicates
that this skill can be enhanced
through
schema
training.
For
example,
in situations
where the
primary
"teacher" is
structured, expository text,
the student's
processing
system might
be
primed
to heed cues to
grammatical structure,
such as
headings
and
topic
sentences
(Dansereau, 1985; Meyer, 1977). Using
another
approach,
Wittrock
(1984) reported
a 20% increase in standardized
reading comprehension
scores for low
ability
soldiers
taught
to
impose
a
"Who?, What?, Where?, When?,
How?,
and
Why?"
schema
upon expository text,
and to
generate
a
summary
based
on that schema. Narratives
may require
awareness
of"story grammars" (Rumelhart,
1975, 1977),
which are known to enhance recall. Dansereau
(1985)
demonstrated
10
that
significantly higher
recall can be
gained by training college
students to use a
theory
schema as an aid to
learning
science text.
Although
not
formally evaluated,
an
example
of schema
training
is found in the
Chicago Mastery Learning Reading
Series,
which instructs students to
recognize
and
employ
different
processing
tactics
for three
types
of text
(Jones, 1983; Jones, Amiran,
&
Katims, 1985).
We note that
a similar form of schema
training
has
proved
useful for arithmetic
(Mayer, 1984).
Finally,
a recent volume
by Holley
and Dansereau
(1984)
describes
important
research
indicating
that
training
students to construct
spatial
and semantic-network
representations
of text can boost
learning.
In
evaluating
this
work, however,
McKeachie
(1984) points
out that
acquisition
of these
strategies requires
extensive
training
and
practice.
Knowledge
about
learning
tactics.
Many
studies
contrasting
the
performance
of
disabled and normal children on
problem-solving
and
memory
tasks have found
that disabled learners are less efficient and
"planful" (Torgesen, 1977).
That
is, they
do not
deploy learning
tactics in a
goal-directed
manner. A recent overview of
research and
theory by Pressley
et al.
(1984) suggests
that some forms of
metacog-
nitive
knowledge necessary
for
planning
can be
imparted through
direct
training
and
planned
activities.
Direct
training ofmetamemory:
This
method,
also called "informed
training" by
Campione, Brown,
and Ferrara
(1982),
and
"explicit provision
of
metamemory"
by Pressley
et al.
(1984), greatly
embellishes direct tactic
training
with
explicit
instruction on the
utility
of the to-be-learned tactics and on how and when
they
should be used. For
example,
students
might
be
taught
that note
taking
and
question answering
are
appropriate
for
computer-assisted
instruction
(CAI),
but
that
highlighting
and
summarizing
are better for conventional text. Direct
training
can be contrasted with what
Campione
et al.
(1982)
have called "blind
training,"
whereby
students are induced to
employ learning
tactics without
being taught
that
they help performance
or are
appropriate
to certain classes of
learning
activities.
These authors have
reported frequent
use of blind
training
in research
settings
and
note that
inevitably
it does not lead to durable use of trained
learning
tactics.
Pressley
et al.
(1984)
cite a number of
experiments
that have evaluated the
impact
of one
type
of direct
metacognitive training,
the
provision
of
utility
information. When students are convinced that a tactic will
promote learning,
that
tactic is more
likely
to be maintained and
employed
when the
training
task is
administered
again
at a later time.
However,
a
major hypothesis
of
metacognitive
theory
is that
metamemory training
will induce
transfer,
so that trained tactics are
later modified for use in a
learning
situation that is unlike the one encou,ltered
during training.
Belmont et al.
(1982)
have
argued
that
metacognitive training
was
the common denominator in six out of seven
training programs
that did effect far
transfer of tactics utilization. An
experimental
test of the transfer
hypothesis by
O'Sullivan and
Pressley (1984) successfully
linked
with
transfer of
memory tactics,
albeit near transfer.
Nevertheless,
the
empirical
link
between direct
training
of
and tactic transfer is still
tenuous, though experimental
work is now in
progress.
Planned
practice:
With this
approach,
learners are not
provided
with
explicit
instructions
regarding
the
utility
and use of tactics.
Rather,
this
metacognitive
knowlege
is allowed to evolve as a result of
planned,
real-world
practice
with the
trained tactics. A series of five
experiments by Pressley, Levin,
and Ghatala
(1984)
11
DERRY AND MURPHY
has
provided
evidence that
knowlege
about a tactic does in fact evolve with its
use,
even in the absence of
explicit performance
feedback.
However,
their data indicate
that
planned practice
is much more effective with adults than with
children, and,
as
Pressley, Levin,
and Ghatala
(1984) point out, challenge
the wisdom of
allowing
children to discover the
advantages
and limitations of tactics on their own.
MAPS:
Pressley, Levin,
and Ghatala
(1984)
have coined the
acronym MAPS,
Metamemory Acquisition Procedures,
to stand for instruction that induces students
to
critically
evaluate the
impact
of
learning
tactics
they employ.
The MAPS
concept
is illustrated
by
the child who is
taught
an
outlining
tactic for text-based
learning,
and then is asked to
compare
how
easy
it is to learn a
chapter
with and without
outlining. Or,
the child
might
be asked to
analyze
the
outlining
tactic to determine
whether it is more work or more fun than other text
learning
tactics. The
purpose
of such
procedures
is to
help
students induce and refine
about tactics and their relative utilities for different
learning
situations.
Although many
commentators have
suggested
that
MAP-type procedures might
be of
high
educational value
(e.g., Brown, 1978;
Brown &
DeLoache, 1978; Flavell,
1981), Pressley, Levin,
and Ghatala
(1984)
indicate that
systematic
evaluation of
MAPS is far from
complete. They
review three
representative experiments
with
MAPS,
two of which demonstrated increases in children's abilities to
deliberately
choose effective versus ineffective
memory
tactics
(Ghatala, Levin, Pressley,
&
Lodico, 1985; Lodico, Ghatala, Levin, Pressley,
&
Bell, 1983).
A third
study (Kurtz
&
Borkowski,
in
press)
failed to enhance
metamemory
or correctness of tactic
selection for trained versus untrained
subjects. Nevertheless,
MAPS have been
incorporated
into some clinical and educational interventions.
Self-regulation.
Immature learners often are unable to
say
when
they
have
achieved a
learning goal
that has been made clear.
Also, they
are
relatively poor
at
distinguishing
between idea units that
they
have and have not learned
(Brown,
1980).
These
findings
indicate that
poor
readers do not
spontaneously
monitor the
success of their
learning
efforts. Brown
(1980)
describes one
type
of
monitoring
process
that
depends
on a
"triggering mechanism,"
which
signals
able students
when
they
have failed to
comprehend
the information
they
are
reading,
and reminds
them to
deliberately
choose a remediation
strategy.
But even when those
triggering
mechanisms work and a
passage
is
comprehended,
in
many
cases one must
go
beyond
the
gist
and structure of
comprehension
to a more detailed
memory
representation.
This is
studying. Studying
involves
using
the structure that
compre-
hension
provides
as a basis for
learning
more.
Thus, comprehending
is viewed as
phase 1,
and
studying
is viewed as
phase
2 of
learning, although
in
complex learning
there is
probably
a
reciprocal
interaction between
phases.
During phase
1
learning
there is
comprehension monitoring. During phase
2
there is
"study monitoring" (Locke, 1975),
which in the case of verbal information
involves
focusing
on material that is
important
and
unknown; applying
selected
learning
tactics to that
material; checking
the results of the
learning effort;
and
changing tactics,
if
necessary. Learning
difficulties
might
occur at
any
of these
stages
of
monitoring, although
some
stages obviously
are
prerequisites
for others
(just
as
obviously, phase
1 is a
prerequisite
for
phase 2).
This model is based on
numerous studies
reported by
Brown
(1978)
and Baker and Brown
(1984)
that
focus on critical differences between how mature and immature learners
"regulate"
their
study
behaviors.
12
Many
reviews
by
Brown and associates
(e.g.,
Baker &
Brown, 1984)
have
suggested
that there are three
components
for successful
cognitive
skills
training:
(a) training
in the use of
task-specific strategies (tactics); (b)
"awareness"
training,
explicit
instruction
concerning
the
significance
of tactics and the
range
of their
utility (metacognitive knowledge);
and
(c)
instruction in how to orchestrate and
oversee tactic
deployment (self-regulation strategies).
An
example illustrating
this
third factor is found in a
program designed by
the Brown
group
for fifth to
eighth
graders. Training topics
include
(a) selecting
main
ideas, (b) checking
on one's
existing
state of
knowledge,
and
(c) choosing
as
study
aids
important
information
that is not known well
enough
to risk a test. This work
exemplifies
a recent shift in
research focus from
describing
the difficulties of
poor
students to the
testing
of
practical
methods
designed
to
help
them be
strategic
learners. Brown and Baker
attribute this advance to the
metacognitive
movement.
Implications of
Three Theories:
Summary
and Conclusions
To initiate a
strategy
for
learning,
an individual must not
only
access an available
library
of
microcomponents
and macro
learning skills,
but also select
particular
component processes
and
incorporate
them into a
learning strategy appropriate
for
the
learning
situation.
Thus, according
to
Sternberg's theory, strategies training
systems
should teach not
only
the essential
cognitive components,
but also train
the executive control function that
employs
them. A
good technology
for
training
macro
learning
skills
already
exists. A
promising drill-and-practice computer
tech-
nology
for
training microprocesses
is
emerging.
The consensus as to the
possibility
of
training
executive control is
positive, although
a
dependable training technology
has not
yet
evolved.
Promising training techniques
that deserve further research
are the
metastrategy
and its
relatives,
the heuristic
planning
models.
Identifying learning goals, goal-directed deployment
of
tactics,
and critical self-
monitoring
are
aspects
of an
emerging
model of executive control based on the
metacognitive
view.
Metacognitive theory
views the executive controller as
oper-
ating
on the basis of
metacognitive knowledge,
which includes information about
learning
situations and rules about when and how to
apply
various
learning
tactics.
A
major
contribution of
metacognitive theory
has been to
highlight
the role of this
declarative
knowledge
in executive control. This
knowledge
about tactics can be
imparted through
direct
expository instruction,
can evolve
through
correct use of
trained
tactics,
and
might
also be
acquired through metacognitive experiences
that
are
engineered
in the
training
environment.
Metacognitive knowledge
is believed
to increase the
probability
of
transferring
trained
learning tactics, although
this
belief
requires
additional
empirical proof.
Such
knowledge
does
appear
to facilitate
tactic maintenance outside of the
training
environment.
Because
focuses
primarily
on
training
the executive
controller that
governs
the
deliberate,
conscious
aspects
of
strategic thinking,
it
departs
from
Sternberg's
model
by ignoring
the
microcomponent
domain. Meta-
cognitive theory
also
departs
from
Gagne's perspective,
which
emphasizes
the
importance
of
long-term practice
in the
acquisition
of "metaskills."
Prescriptions
from
metacognitive theory emphasize
direct
training
of
tactics, strategies,
and
metaknowledge
about tactics and
strategies. However, Gagne
would warn that for
such
training
to be
effective,
it almost
certainly
must be
accompanied by opportu-
nity
for
long-term, frequent practice
within a curriculum that
supplies
an
appro-
13
DERRY AND MURPHY
priate
semantic context for
practice
of executive control skills.
This, along
with the
requirement
to eliminate
possible
interference caused
by teaching
too
many
meta-
strategies
that are
conceptually similar,
indicates a need for
organized
curriculum
planning
that coordinates
training
of
learning strategies
across different
classes,
levels,
and
subjects.
Toward a
Theory
for Curriculum
Design
Embedded Versus Detached
Strategies Training
Sternberg's (1983) guidelines
for
intelligence training emphasize
the
importance
of
providing appropriate linkages
between the
processing
skills that are
being taught
and real-world
processing
situations. The usual method of
insuring ecological
validity
involves
requiring
learners to
process, during training,
the
types
of materials
they
will encounter in their
daily experience.
For
example, Sternberg
notes that
one of his
programs
trains the set of skills individuals use to infer the
meanings
of
previously
unknown words. If a
job-relevant vocabulary
list were
employed during
training,
then students not
only
would
acquire
the
ability
to
figure
out the
meanings
of new
words,
but also
may acquire,
as incidental
learning,
a
vocabulary
list that is
personally germane.
This
approach
amounts to
embedding,
within a
strategies
training program, secondary objectives
based on what
usually
is
regarded
as the
primary subject
matter in a functional basic skills curriculum.
Most
programs designed
to teach
learning strategies
have treated academic
subject
matter as incidental
practice
material. This
approach
is
exemplified by
the
adjunct
learning strategies
courses
developed by groups working
with McCombs
(1981-82),
Dansereau
(1985),
and Weinstein
(e.g.,
Weinstein &
Underwood, 1985).
These
programs
are stand-alone curricula in which tactics and
strategies acquisition,
rather than
subject-matter learning,
is the
primary
aim.
They
teach and
provide
practice
in
using general processing
and
self-management
schemes that are "de-
tached"
(Rigney, 1980)
from
any particular curriculum,
but
presumably
are
appli-
cable to a wide
variety
of
learning
situations. A
shortcoming
of
study
skills courses
is that
they
are unable to
supply
a realistic context for
long-term,
varied
practice
in
strategies
formulation.
An alternative
technology
that can
supply long-term practice
is embedded
strategies training,
which
provides
instruction and
experience
in the use of
learning
strategies
within the context of
existing
curricula based on
subject-matter learning
goals.
This is the
approach employed
in the
Chicago Mastery Learning Reading
Program
with
Learning Strategies (CMLR/LS) (Jones, 1983;
Jones et
al., 1985).
CMLR/LS incorporates explicit
instructions on
text-processing directly
into
sup-
plementary
instructional materials received
by
teachers and students in
reading
classrooms of the
public
school
system.
One
advantage
to this
approach
is that the
learning strategies training
is
implemented
on a
large
scale without extensive in-
service teacher
training.
Jones
(1983)
lists four
types
of
strategies training
that can
be embedded within traditional
subject-matter
instruction:
(1) step-by-step prompts, complex, multistep
directions on how to
think;
(2)
think aloud
models,
simulated
dialogues
of a model student
processing
a
portion
of
text;
(3) adjunct study questions,
which
require particular thinking processes;
and
14
(4) study prompts,
reminders to use
specific
information
processing strategies.
CMLR/LS
relies
heavily
on the first three
types
of embedded
instructions, especially
step-by-step prompts.
Although CMLR/LS
as a whole has not been
formally evaluated, Campione
and
Armbruster
(1985) point
to several
pieces
of evidence
regarding
its effectiveness:
The
program
has been mandated
citywide;
classrooms
using CMLR/LS
show
increased
gains
on standardized
reading
tests
compared
to
previous years;
there is
a
reported
decline in
absenteeism,
student
transfer,
and
discipline problems;
and
acceptance
rates have increased at
magnet
vocational schools
requiring
successful
performance
on entrance
reading
tests.
However, Campione
and Armbruster
(1985)
also
emphasize
that even
though CMLR/LS
materials offer detailed instructions
on
thinking tactics,
students
generally
are not informed of the
range
of situations
in which these
learning
skills are
useful,
nor are
they taught
what it is about the
thinking
methods that makes them effective.
One
potential
weakness of embedded
training pertains
to what Simon
(1969)
has
called executive
"span
of control." For
example,
if the skill of
comprehension
monitoring
is
taught
and
practiced only
within
language
arts
classes, many
students
will not
spontaneously employ
that skill for
history
or math. That
is,
the
span
of
control for the executive mechanism that
triggers comprehension monitoring
will
be limited to certain
types
of
reading
situations. Students are more
likely
to
perceive
the
general applicability
of
learning
skills that are disembedded from
specific
courses
and
taught
as
domain-independent thinking strategies.
A
compromise
between detached and embedded
strategies training
is
exemplified
by JSEP,
a CAI
job-skills
educational
program currently
under
development
for
the
Army by
Florida State
University' (Derry, 1984; Murphy
&
Derry, 1984).
In
this
program,
which
employs
the nonobstrusive
prompting method, strategies
training
occurs outside the actual
learning
event rather than in
conjunction
with
subject-matter
instruction. Brief reminders to use
previously
learned
thinking
skills
are inserted at
appropriate points
into otherwise traditional
subject-matter
lessons.
Since
step-by-step strategies training
is
provided
outside the actual
learning
event
rather than in
conjunction
with
subject-matter instruction, study prompts
are not
likely
to
disrupt
concentration. This
prompting procedure
is
analogous
to establish-
ing,
in a
problem-solving situation,
what Bower
(1975)
and
Gagne (1980a)
have
called a "learner set": "The effect of the set is to activate a
cognitive strategy
that
persists during
the time the
processes
of
problem solving
are
being employed"
(Gagne, 1980a, p. 15).
The intent of
prompting
is to
encourage
recall and
practice
of
previously acquired
learning
skills.
Thus,
the
development
of the executive controller that calls and
uses
text-processing
tactics at
appropriate
times is conceived as a form of incidental
learning
embedded within a functional basic-skills curriculum.
Empirical
and
theoretical
justification
for the incidental
learning
of executive control is
supplied
in
part by
research based on the
depth-of-processing paradigm (Craik
&
Lockhart,
1972;
Craik &
Tulving, 1975),
which
clearly
has demonstrated that intention to
learn is not a
prerequisite
for
actually learning.
'Army
Research Institute contract #MDA 903-82-C-0532 to the Center for Educational
Technology,
Robert K.
Branson, Project
Director.
15
DERRY AND MURPHY
Strategies
Initiation: Awareness and Control
Although
a
learning strategy
is
always
carried out
by
the
student,
initiation and
control of its use
may
arise
primarily
from the student's self-instructions
(learner
controlled)
or from a teacher or an instructional
system (lesson controlled).
Fur-
thermore,
the student's awareness of
strategy
can
vary,
and thus a continuum is
conceptualized, ranging
from "conscious" to "subconscious"
processing.
A con-
scious
strategy
can be described
independently
of the
subject
matter that is
being
processed;
that
is,
the student is aware of its existence. A subconscious
strategy may
be lesson controlled if it is
deliberately
"forced"
by
the instructional
design,
or
student controlled if it is not. In either
case,
the learner is not
spontaneously
aware
of its use. These distinctions resemble those made
by Rigney (1978, 1980). They
suggest
the four
conceptualizations
of learner
strategies presented
below.
Awareness of Student Lesson
learner
strategy:
controlled controlled
Conscious A B
Subconscious C D
Consider a student
attempting
to learn the text material
presented by
a
training
manual. If the student
deliberately adopts
a
strategy involving
the use of
paraphrase,
imagery,
and
self-generated questions,
this would be an
example
of situation A.
But,
if the textbook
directly
instructs the student in the use of this
strategy,
this
would
exemplify
situation B.
Rigney's premise
was that situation A is
desirable,
at
least in
many
circumstances. He
argued
that when students have not
naturally
acquired appropriate strategies
for
learning,
situation A
might
be realized
through
initially implementing
combination B. In
early phases
of a
training program,
instruction would
explicitly point
out that there
are,
in
fact, strategies
that can be
applied
to facilitate
learning
of the
subject
content. As the student
progresses
and
develops greater
skill with
processing
the
subject material, strategy prompts
can be
phased out, gradually transferring
control to the
student,
as in situation A
(Rigney,
1978).
Combination C is illustrated
by
the situation in which the student has
evolved,
through experience
with a
particular type
of
material,
a
processing
method that is
so
spontaneous
and
automatic,
there is no conscious awareness of its initiation and
use. The
widely accepted
resource allocation model of attention
(Norman
&
Bobrow, 1975) suggests
that
automaticity
is a
highly
desirable
long-range goal
for
strategies training.
Automatic
strategies
initiation is believed to free attentional
resources that can be devoted to
processing
of content-based instruction. Whether
or not
any
form of learner
strategies training
can lead to C is an
important empirical
question
that has not been resolved
yet. Rigney (1980)
believed that extended
practice
of a
newly acquired strategy,
as in mode
A,
could
help develop
the
type
of
automaticity
that is a desirable characteristic of the
subconscious,
student-controlled
strategy.
Most conventional instruction
represents
situation
D,
the lesson-controlled coun-
terpart
to automatic
processing.
This instructional
design methodology
involves
incorporating
controls into a
lesson,
so that students are
required
to
employ
16
particular processing strategies
to
accomplish subject-matter orienting
tasks. For
example,
some
types
of inserted
questions (Anderson
&
Biddle, 1975; Andre, 1979;
Rickards, 1976) may
be used to foster
imaging
and
deep processing. Or, through
explanation techniques
based on
metaphor
and
analogy (Ortony, 1975;
Rumelhart
&
Norman, 1981),
or the advance
organizer (Ausubel, 1963; Ausubel, Novak,
&
Hanesian, 1978),
students
might
be
required
to encode new information in the
context of a
particular prior knowledge
structure. The field of instructional devel-
opment
is
represented by
the
methodologies
of
Gagne
and
Briggs (Briggs, 1977;
Gagne, 1985; Gagne
&
Briggs, 1974),
which
rely heavily
on lesson-controlled
strategies
that
promote
subconscious
processing
and are
supplied by
the instruc-
tional
designer
as
part
of an event called
"learning guidance."
The effects of lesson-controlled
strategies
have now been documented
by
a
substantial
corpus
of
literature; yet
our search of that literature revealed few
(if any)
highly dependable
instructional
techniques.
With the
possible exception
of "forced"
practice
and
feedback,
no
single,
isolated instructional device that will
greatly
enhance
pedagogical
effectiveness is known.
By contrast,
some
explicitly taught
learner-controlled
techniques,
such as mnemonics and
pegword systems, clearly
and without
question
have
significantly
enhanced
memory (see Pressley
&
Levin,
1983,
for several
reviews). Furthermore, Rigney (1978)
has
argued
that hidden
strategies
do little to
help
the student
cope
with
requirements
for further
independ-
ent
learning
of material that is not
highly "designed" (e.g.,
a technical manual
accompanying
electronic
equipment). Yet,
the notion of
subconscious,
lesson-
controlled
strategies
has
strong
intuitive and theoretical
appeal.
If
thought
control
can
totally
be
relinquished by
the student to the instructional
system,
more of the
learner's activation resources
presumably
are available for concentrated
processing
of
subject
matter.
Thus,
it is
argued
that situation D
represents
the most efficient
form of instruction when
improving learning ability
is not an
important
instructional
goal.
Implications for Design of Learning Strategy Training
It is
possible
to
conceptualize
a curriculum that is
designed
to
engineer sponta-
neous initiation of
learning strategies by moving
students from
conscious,
lesson-
controlled
processing, through
what
might
be termed "the
metacognitive phase,"
toward a
smoother,
more automatic form of
processing.
A feasible
technology
for
implementing
such a curriculum is the unobtrusive
prompting
method. With this
method,
some direct
training
in
learning
skills is detached from
regular
classroom
instruction.
Prompts
to
employ learning
skills at
appropriate
times are then
delivered
periodically by
teachers or
training materials, thereby encouraging
fre-
quent practice
of
strategic thinking
in the classroom. Various methods of unobtru-
sive
prompting might
be
employed, including
teacher
modeling
and
explicit
re-
minders to use certain
learning
tactics. At advanced levels of
instruction, prompts
should
gradually
become less
explicit
and less
frequent, facilitating independent
processing
of curriculum materials.
Baker and Brown
(1984)
have
argued
that in
many
real-life
learning
situations
(e.g., mother-child, mastercraftsman-apprentice),
transfer of executive control
passes
from teacher to student due to the interactive nature of the
learning
experience.
The teacher is viewed
initially
as a
"supportive
other" who acts as a
17
DERRY AND MURPHY
model and
interrogator, leading
the student toward
strategic thinking.
This inter-
rogative, self-regulatory
control
eventually
becomes internalized
by
the student
during
the interactive
process,
and the teacher
relinquishes
control.
Such
dynamic systems
of
tutelage
are
ideal,
but
they require
a
degree
of individ-
ualized attention to each student that is too
costly
for
large-scale implementation:
In order to
perform
this essential
role, however,
the adult must be sensitive
to the child's needs at
any stage
of the
process.
She must
engage
in on-line
diagnosis
that will inform her level of
participation,
a level of
participation
that is
finely
tuned to the child's
changing cognitive
status.
(Baker
&
Brown,
1984, p. 382)
Unfortunately, many
teachers are not "mastercraftsmen" with
respect
to
strategic
thinking,
and often
they
face hundreds of
"apprentices"
each
year.
A more reason-
able
expectation
for teachers is that
they
model and
prompt,
in their
classrooms,
a
specific
set of
learning
skills that were
taught previously.
A
Prototype Modelfor Training Learning Strategies
A fictional
prototype training program
will illustrate how
adjunct training
in
learning skills,
a
metastrategy technique,
and nonobtrusive
prompting
could be
combined with a standard curriculum. In our model
school,
a middle school
perhaps,
the first 2 weeks of each
year
are devoted to the
training
of
learning
skills.
Learning strategies training
includes instructional units on the
following topics:
time
management,
mood
management, study reading,
memorization
skills,
and
problem-solving techniques. Although
different teachers are
responsible
for differ-
ent
topics,
their efforts are coordinated. One form of coordination is
through
the
use of a common
planning model,
or
metastrategy,
called the four C's
Learning
Plan. The four C's are as follows:
clarify
the
learning situation;
come
up
with a
plan; carry
out the
plan;
and check
your
results.
Thus, language
arts teachers
explain
how
reading
and memorization tactics fit into the four
C's,
while math
teachers
explain problem-solving,
and
physical
education teachers
explain
mood
control tactics
using
the same framework.
Instructional materials are
designed
so that each course
topic
is associated with
a fictitious character whose
image
and name
represents
the
concept being taught.
For
example,
the idea of time
management
is introduced
by
female
jogger,
T.
Pacer;
mood
management
is
represented by Coach; problem solving
is associated
with detective Imus
Plan; reading
is
represented by Captain Booker,
and so on. In
each
unit, specific
tactics are
taught
and associated with the
appropriate
icon. Some
segments
of the
learning
skills course
emphasize
the mutual
interdependence
of
tactics
by having
characters
appear together
as members of
cooperating groups.
The intent of this device is to create an
"imagery
mnemonic" that can
help
to cue
students later when
they attempt
to recall and use tactics associated with the four
C's. These characters also
appear frequently
in the context of lessons that make
up
the
regular
curriculum
during
the school
year.
In the classroom
they
are used as
part
of a
prompting system
that
encourages
students to
consciously
recall and
employ
certain
learning
skills at
appropriate
times. For
example,
Coach and
Detective Plan
frequently
work
together
on math
assignments;
Pace and Booker
join
forces for term
papers,
and so on.
Prompts
are
presented
in creative
forms,
18
ranging
from attractive
posters
on classroom walls to
explicit
reminders and
modeling
of
strategic
behavior
by
a teacher.
During
the
year, prompts
are faded
gradually,
in
frequency
and
length,
to
encourage
the
development
of
independence
and automatic
processing.
A CAI
implementation
of a similar idea is
represented by JSEP,
the
job-skills
educational
program
mentioned
previously.
The JSEP
design specifications
include
a
system-controlled prompting system
that
(1) prompts students,
at selected
points
within each CAI
job-skills lesson,
to
recall and use certain
learning techniques;
(2) analyzes
student
performance
to
help
determine when
prompts
are no
longer needed;
and
(3) gradually phases
out
prompts
in advanced
stages
of instruction when there
is evidence of
spontaneous strategies
initiation.
The obvious
advantage
of a CAI over a
paper-based implementation
is that the
computer
can individualize
strategies training by making
some
"intelligent"
deci-
sions
regarding
each student's
progress.
For
example,
students who
actively practice
the skill of
comprehension monitoring
should
frequently
use the review
option
for
difficult-to-understand material. If results of a
comprehension posttest
indicate lack
of
understanding,
but the
computer's
review counter has
posted
few or no reviews
for that
student,
then a
prompting
character
automatically
could
begin
to
appear
requiring
use of the review
option.
To illustrate this
concept,
an
intelligent
drill-
and-practice system
has been
designed by Derry
and Hawkes
(1985) featuring
a
"fuzzy
executive controller" that initiates and fades
prompts according
to infor-
mation collected in the student's file.
One nonstandard
aspect
of these
prototype
instructional
systems
is the attention
paid
to
development
of
automaticity.
A number of
strategies training programs
have
attempted
to raise the student's
"metacognitive
consciousness." But the models
we describe further
attempt
to
logistically engineer
the
change
from the laborious
activity
of the conscious level to the "normal
rapid
automatic
pilot
state" that
distinguishes
subconscious
processing (Brown, 1980). Throughout
these instruc-
tional
programs,
students who need
prompts
are reminded to
engage
in the
extensive and
rigorous strategies practice
that is known to be
necessary
for the
development
of automatic
processing (Hirst, Spelke, Reaves,
Caharack &
Neisser,
1980; Neisser, 1976; Rigney, 1980)
or at least smooth
performance.
With the onset
of
spontaneous strategies initiation,
reviews and
prompts
can be
phased out,
presumably
in advanced
stages
of instruction.
Identifying
Trainable
Learning
Skills
Taxonomies
of learning
skills. A theoretical
analysis
in search of
general princi-
ples
about how to train
learning ability
must blur
important
distinctions between
different
types
of
learning
skills. In this section we extend our
analysis
to a discussion
of different
learning strategy
domains. The
questions
we addressed were the
following:
What are the
components
of
learning ability?
How should the domain
of academic
intelligence
be
conceptualized
and
decomposed?
Which
learning
skills
can be
taught,
and what
questions
must be addressed in further instructional
research?
Unfortunately,
as
Vaughan
noted in a 1981
review,
an
empirically
derived
19
DERRY AND MURPHY
taxonomy
of
learning
skills does not exist. But while it is true that the microcom-
ponents
of
learning
have not been identified and
organized
within a taxonomic
framework, many
researchers and educators
(e.g., Dansereau, 1985;
Dansereau et
al., 1979; McCombs, 1984; Weinstein, 1982)
base their work on curriculum
taxonomies that
represent
an
attempt
to delineate both the macro- and metacom-
ponents
of
learning.
These taxonomies have been modified over the
years
as a
result of
experience
and
research,
and hence have
acquired
a
significant
measure
of
empirical
and face
validity.
Since taxonomies
overlap
one another
substantially,
only
three
representative
schemes are discussed.
We note that most researchers have
adopted
the convention of
referring
to the
individual
learning
skills listed in their taxonomies as
"learning strategies,"
and we
have
acquiesced
to this convention in our discussion of their work.
However,
the
taxonomies
actually
include both
macrocomponent
and
metacomponent learning
skills,
which we would
prefer
to call
"learning
tactics" and
"learning strategies,"
respectively (Snowman
&
McCown, 1984).
Dansereau's
taxonomy.
This is
possibly
the best known
taxonomy
for verbal
learning.
Dansereau and his
colleagues (e.g., Dansereau, 1978, 1985;
Dansereau et
al., 1978;
Dansereau et
al., 1979)
have identified two
types
of skills that should be
taught
at the
college level,
and have created two
metastrategies,
one for
studying
and one for
test-taking,
that combine skills from both domains. The domains are
as follows:
1.
Primary strategies:
These are
processing
skills
employed
for
encoding, storing,
retrieving,
and
using
text information. This
group
consists of
(a) comprehension-
retention,
and
(b)
retrieval-utilization
strategies. Comprehension-retention
strate-
gies
include
(a) paraphrase-imagery; (b) networking,
which involves
transforming
text-based instruction into node-link
maps;
and
(c) key
idea
analysis.
Retrieval
strategies
involve
using
a
networking map
as a retrieval
plan.
2.
Support strategies:
These are used to
help
the learner maintain a suitable
mind set for
learning.
There are
(a) goal-setting
and
scheduling; (b)
concentration
management,
which includes
strategies
for
creating
and
maintaining
a
positive
learning mood;
and
(c) self-monitoring
and
diagnosing,
which instructs students to
stop periodically
to check
and,
if
necessary, readjust,
their
understanding,
concen-
tration,
and mood.
The salient features of Dansereau's scheme are its inclusion of information-
processing
and affective domains and its attention to
macrocomponents
and the
metacomponent
skills that
employ
them. Taxonomies
by
McCombs
(e.g., 1984)
and
by
Weinstein and
Mayer (1985)
also share these features.
Jones's
taxonomy.
Jones
(e.g., 1983;
Jones et
al., 1985)
has
argued
that text-
processing strategies
also must be defined with reference to the
type
of text for
which
they
are
appropriate.
A useful convention of Jones's work is the
generaliza-
tion of the term "text" to include all forms of written and oral instruction. Jones's
taxonomy
identifies three
types
of
text-processing
x
strategy
situations that occur
in
public
schools:
encoding strategies
for
explicit text, generative strategies
for
implicit text,
and constructive
strategies
for
inadequate
text conditions.
1.
Encoding strategies:
These include
naming, rehearsing,
and
elaborating key
ideas in text.
They
are basic memorization tactics for text that
requires
little
comprehension monitoring
or critical
thinking.
20
2. Generative
strategies:
These include skills such as
paraphrasing
and visualiz-
ing, elaborating
with
analogies, inferencing,
and
summarizing.
Such
strategies
are
"generative"
(Wittrock, 1984)
in the sense that the learner uses
prior knowledge
to
help
determine the
meaning
of what is
given
in text.
3. Constructive
strategies:
These
strategies
include
reasoning, transformation,
and
synthesis. They
are
employed
when the learner must construct
meaning
from
multiple
sources or from text that is
inadequate
or
ambiguous.
With
respect
to this
taxonomy,
constructive
strategies
involve the
highest
level
thinking
skills.
Jones's
taxonomy acknowledges
research
indicating
that students need to under-
stand not
only
how to
carry
out
thinking skills,
but also when to use them. The
taxonomy provides
an efficient
system
for
classifying
verbal
learning
situations
(only
three
categories).
It was based on an extensive review of research literature as
well as field
experience
in a
large-scale implementation,
and thus is
judged
to have
considerable
validity
for the lower
grades.
A
taxonomy by
Weinstein and
Mayer
(1985)
also classifies
strategies according
to text
type using eight
less
general
categories. However,
Weinstein and
Mayer
work
mostly
with
college
students.
Stanger's taxonomy. Stanger's (1982) taxonomy
is mentioned as
representing
a
different trend in field-based
strategy training-one
influenced more
by
research
on
problem solving
and
creativity
than
by
verbal
learning
research.
Stanger's matrix,
also the result of field
experience
in
public
schools and a
2-year
research of the
literature,
treats
memory strategies
as a subset of
general problem-solving
tech-
niques. Stanger
recommends the
teaching
of
memory strategies; domain-specific
intellectual skills that underlie
problem solving; cognitive strategies
derived from
the
problem-solving
literature
(e.g., working backwards,
focus
gambling);
and skills
associated with
creativity,
such as
fluency
and
flexibility. Strategies training
based
on the
Stanger taxonomy presumably
would
improve
achievement in classes that
demand
problem solving
and
creativity.
Issues
bearing
on the
training
of
problem-
solving
skills are discussed in a
following
review section.
Our assessment of current taxonomies is that none are
sufficiently general
to
account for the full
range
of
learning
activities and student
populations
found in a
typical public
school
system.
Some focus
exclusively
on verbal
learning,
others on
problem solving.
All are limited in
scope
in that not one includes
language
production
skills that underlie
speaking
and
writing.
And while most
encourage
training
in both
macrocomponent
and executive
learning skills,
all
ignore
the
important microcomponent
domain: It
exists,
but has not been discovered.
Research Issues in Four
Learning Strategy
Domains
The structure that underlies our research and
training programs represents
an
integration
of the three
types
of taxonomies described above. We believe our
scheme is
appropriate
for what often is called "basic skills"
learning,
and it has
generalized
to several
age groups
and
ability
levels. The
major categories
in our
taxonomy
are
(a) memory strategies
for
items, lists,
and
foreign vocabulary; (b)
reading/study strategies
for
specific types
of school
text; (c) problem-solving
skills
applicable
to the arithmetic
domain;
and
(d)
affective
support strategies
for all
domains. In this section we
present
an overview of the status of research in each
area and raise several issues that research must address.
21
DERRY AND MURPHY
Memory Training
Memorization skills have been studied more than
any
other
type
of
cognitive
strategy,
and the literature is
replete
with
experimental
evidence and
logical argu-
ments that establish the
utility
of
training
students to use
memory strategies
as an
aid in
learning
new material.
Present-day memory
research has drawn from
numerous
populations (e.g., children, adolescents, adults, learning disabled, mildly
mentally retarded),
has
employed many types
of
learning
material
(e.g., literary
prose,
scientific
text, paired associates, foreign vocabulary),
and has
investigated
many
different memorization methods
(rehearsal,
mnemonic
techniques,
elabora-
tion, organizational strategies, etc.).
These studies
(e.g.,
Atkinson &
Raugh, 1975;
Brown et
al., 1981; Butterfield, Wambold,
&
Belmont, 1973;
Danner &
Taylor,
1973; Engle
&
Nagle, 1979; Liberty
&
Ornstein, 1973)
offer substantial
guidance
for
design
of instructional
procedures
intended to train
memory.
Researchers
agree, however,
that a
problematic goal
of
memory training
is to
induce transfer. As
argued by
Waters and Andreassen
(1983), competency
with a
particular
memorization tactic does not insure its
appropriate
use in
learning
contexts
beyond
the
training program. Though
the need for additional
investiga-
tions of tactics transfer is
widely recognized, (e.g., Pressley, Levin,
&
Bryant, 1983;
Waters &
Andreassen, 1983), procedures
that can facilitate maintenance and
generalized application
of
memory
skills have been established. One method
suggested by
the
metacognitive perspective
is to embellish
training
in
memory
tactics with instruction
concerning utility, range
of
applicability,
and how the skills
can be combined in a total
self-monitoring
routine.
Extensive and varied
practice appears
to be another
necessary component
for
training programs
that seek to induce broad transfer
(Weinstein, Underwood,
Wicker,
&
Cubberly, 1979;
Weinstein et
al., 1981).
A
particular memory strategy
is most
easily acquired
when
practice
materials are structured to facilitate the
type
of
processing required by
that
strategy.
Because the natural
process
of
generalization
then moves from favorable to less favorable
processing
conditions and more varied
types
of materials
(Waters
&
Andreassen, 1983), training
should first
begin
with
near transfer
practice examples
that
encourage
and facilitate the use of a
target
strategy,
then move
gradually
to
practice
situations that
represent
less desirable
processing
conditions. Weinstein et al.
(1979)
recommend a broad
approach
that
gives
the learner
practice
in
accessing
a wide
variety
of
component strategies
with
many types
of material.
A second issue
pertaining
to
memory training
is the
question
of whether students
can be
taught
to use a
memory strategy
that
they
cannot
easily employ
when
only
minimal
strategy
instruction is
provided (Pressley
et
al., 1983).
Rohwer
(1980)
has
argued
in favor of the
developmental strategy hypothesis-the
notion that
strategy
instruction
merely
activates a
that
already
has been
acquired
through
the natural
process
of
development. Pressley
et al.
(1983)
note that
Rohwer's
hypothesis
and its variants are
supported by
a wealth of
empirical
data
demonstrating
that older children invoke and use "new"
memory strategies
follow-
ing relatively light prompting.
The obvious
implication
is that
strategy training,
at
least for older children and
adults,
should
proceed by prompting
students to access
and use
particular strategies during
natural
language processing.
In
identifying appropriate goals
for future research on the educational
applica-
22
tions of
memory training,
we note one
important
issue that is seldom raised: What
is the
appropriate
role for these "verbal"
(Gagne, 1980a) learning strategies
in the
acquisition
of the
procedural-type knowledge
that is a
primary
focus of all basic
school curricula and other forms of skills
training?
This
question,
related to what
Winograd (1975)
has described as the
"declarative-procedural debate,"
asks whether
or not students should be
required
to
memorize,
as declarative
information,
procedural
rules that
govern
skill
performance.
Learners often do not need to be
able to state what
they
are
doing
in order to do it. To illustrate this
point, Gagne
(personal communication, 1984)
is fond of
pointing
out that children learn to
formulate
acceptable
sentences without
being
able to state the rules of
grammar.
Also,
there are those who have
argued
that
memorizing procedural steps,
such as
might
be derived from an
information-processing analysis
of a math
skill,
can
interfere with
performance (Hendrix, 1960,
cited in
Gagne
&
Dick, 1962).
On the other
hand,
some theorists
(e.g.,
Rumelhart &
Norman, 1981) argue
that
intellectual skills
(procedural knowledge)
and verbal information
(declarative
knowledge)
are
represented identically
in semantic
memory.
At the
very least,
the
human
system apparently
can
interrogate "knowledge that," transforming
it into
"knowledge how,"
and vice versa.
Thus,
the
procedure
of
having
students memorize
a verbal
"program"
before
practicing
a skill
may prove
to be an efficient
way
to
teach
procedural
skills.
Furthermore,
there are
many
other
possible advantages
of
acquiring
a skill as verbal information before
learning
to
perform
it. For
example,
if the skill is
explicitly
and
precisely codified,
it
may
be remembered
later,
even
after
long periods
of non-use. To ascertain the
appropriate
role for
verbal-learning
strategies
in skill
training,
these issues must be addressed
through
further research.
Reading Strategies Training
This
type
of
training
focuses on how to read for the
purpose
of
learning
instructional content in various
subject
domains. Research and
theory suggest
that
students should be
taught
to
apply
different
comprehension
and
study strategies
for different
types
of
reading
situations. There is little doubt that a reader's
memory
representation
of instruction can be
varied,
both in form and
quality, by altering
the
processing strategy
that is
employed during learning.
For
example, Mayer
and
associates
(e.g.,
Cook &
Mayer, 1983; Mayer
&
Bromage, 1980) experimented
with
training procedures
that
required
students to
engage
in different
strategies
for
learning
technical text. Different
strategies produced unique learning
outcomes that
differed in terms of informational
density,
internal
connectedness,
and relatedness
to
prior knowledge.
Biggs
and Collis
(1982)
also have
argued
that
memory representations
of the
same material can differ in form and in
content,
and that such differences
represent
variations in
quality
of
learning
outcome.
They
have
developed
the Structure of
Observed
Learning
Outcomes
(SOLO) taxonomy:
five
types
of mental structures
that can result from
reading
and that
range
from
prestructural (poor quality)
to
extended abstract
(high quality). Biggs (1979)
demonstrated a
relationship
between
taxonomic level of
learning
outcome and
learning purpose,
which
presumably
alters
processing strategy. Essentially, subjects
who read
only
to achieve factual
knowledge
produced protocols indicating
lower SOLO levels.
Higher
levels were
produced
when
subjects
were
expected
to use the information.
Higher
levels on the SOLO
23
DERRY AND MURPHY
taxonomy
also were
produced by
students whose
responses
on a
study strategy
questionnaire
indicated that
they usually
read to internalize
personally
relevant
information, though they
recalled less factual detail.
A basic
assumption underlying
the
reading strategy hypothesis
is that different
learning
outcomes exact different
prices
of time and
processing
resources. It follows
that an
intelligent reading strategy
should
begin
with an awareness of
reading goals
and an
analysis
of
possible
cost-benefit tradeoffs that can be made
by choosing
a
goal-directed strategy.
For
example,
if the student's immediate aim is to follow
instructions from a lab
manual,
a
relatively
unstructured and
sparse memory
representation
would be sufficient since
long-term
retention would not be the
goal.
Thus,
a
"job-aid" reading strategy might
be chosen that includes tactics such as
breaking
the task into
parts, scanning
for relevant
information,
and
rehearsing
text
material for short-term retention while
working
toward a
subgoal. However,
if the
student is to be tested on the
procedures,
and
particularly
if free-recall
ability
is
desired,
then the reader should form a sufficient number of "internal connections"
(Cook
&
Mayer, 1983). Consequently,
an
organizing
or
networking strategy
fol-
lowed
by
deliberate
application
of a mnemonic
might
be selected. "External
connectedness"
(Cook
&
Mayer, 1983)
is a
highly
desirable characteristic if the
learning
outcome is to
support
transfer and
problem-solving performance.
Exter-
nally
connected structures
develop
from learner efforts to
interpret
and encode
information in context with a relevant
body
of
prior knowledge. Thus, practice
of
the
procedure
with different
types
of
problems
would be wise.
Just as
reading goal
should influence deliberate choice of
strategy,
so should the
type
of text
being
read. Jones
(1983)
has
pointed
out that
"learning strategies
cannot
be defined or understood without reference to the text to which
they apply
because
the
cognitive processes vary according
to the text condition"
(p. 6).
If the
learning
task is
explicit
so that to-be-learned ideas are
obvious,
the student can
immediately
apply appropriate encoding
and retrieval
strategies
without
devoting
much effort
to the
comprehension phase
of
study. However, implicit
or
inadequate
text condi-
tions
require
that students first construct a mental
representation
of text that
might
then need to be reinforced
through study.
Most extant models of
reading compre-
hension
(see
Samuels &
Kamil, 1984,
for
review) emphasize
that success with this
construction
process depends
on a
great many prerequisite skills, including
micro-
processes,
relevant
prior knowledge,
and the abilities to reason and
predict.
Reasoning
and
predicting:
An
important type
of
is
represented by
a
person's
self-awareness of the reader as an active information
processor
who
constantly
makes
inferences,
formulates
hypotheses,
ventures
pre-
dictions,
and draws conclusions about the
meaning
of a
passage.
Such
reasoning
skills are not
required
for
interpretation
of the
explicit
materials
employed
for
early
stages
of
reading
instruction. Cook and
Mayer (1983) point
out that
during
the
learning
to read
stage,
the
reading
task is
basically
one of
confirming something
that is
already
known.
Early reading
materials are
highly stereotypical
and struc-
tured to
promote
immediate
understanding.
Before adult
years, however,
the
goals
of
reading change.
Older children and adults read in order to
update knowledge
and
acquire
new
information,
and the materials
they
encounter are much more
likely
to
represent implicit
and
inadequate
text conditions.
According
to Chall
(1979),
the role of
prior knowledge
in the
comprehension process
increases dra-
24
matically
when one is
reading
to learn. The
reasoning processes
that facilitate
integration
of text with
prior knowledge
also become more
important.
Good curriculum
planning
can
help
insure that students
possess adequate pre-
requisite knowledge. However,
some adolescents and adults
may
fail to use their
reasoning skills, thereby severely limiting
their abilities to
employ prior knowledge
as an aid to
understanding.
Can such
reasoning
skills be trained in readers who
have not
acquired
them
naturally during
the normal course of
development?
Training
based on theories of natural
language processing
and artificial
intelligence
(see Schank, 1980,
for
summary
of relevant
theory)
seem
promising.
Drawing
ideas from
promising experimental findings by
Brown and
colleagues
(e.g.,
Palincsar &
Brown, 1983)
that indicate the value of
modeling
as a
teaching
technique,
Collins and Smith
(1982)
have devised a method for
instructing
students
to use clues in text to make
hypotheses
about what is
happening
or what is
likely
to
happen
next in the
passage,
to evaluate these
hypotheses
as new evidence comes
in,
and to revise them should evidence accumulate to indicate that
they
are
wrong.
They suggest
that students learn to
develop
three kinds of
hypotheses
as
they
read:
event
expectations,
text structure
expectations,
and
interpretations.
The
training
method
they propose
has three
stages. During
the
modeling stage,
a teacher reads
a text
aloud, stopping
once or twice in each
paragraph
to make comments. The
model
generates hypotheses
about the
text, points
out
supporting
and
disconfirming
information, expresses
occasional confusion and
doubt,
and makes critical com-
ments.
During
the student
participation stage,
the teacher
gradually
shifts
respon-
sibility
for
generating hypotheses
and
citing confirming
and
disconfirming
infor-
mation to the student.
Finally,
the student is
encouraged
to make
predictions
while
reading silently.
To assess the student's
ability
to formulate
hypotheses
while
reading
silently, questions requiring predictions
are inserted at various
points
in the text.
The
efficacy
of
developing
students'
inferencing
abilities
through training
is still
an
empirical issue,
since evaluations of
many
current
experimental
efforts have not
yet
been
reported.
But even if such methods
prove
to be
successful, many
issues of
transfer and academic
impact
still must be addressed.
Comprehension monitoring:
Able readers are aware when
they
have failed to
understand
important
information in text. A sense of
puzzlement may signal
the
comprehension
failure and lead to a remedial course of action intended to
remedy
the
knowledge deficiency.
The sense of
puzzlement
that serves as the
triggering
mechanism in this
example
is one instance of what Flavell
(1979)
has called a
"metacognitive experience."
Knowing
what
types
of
comprehension
failures there are
might help
some
students have
metacognitive experiences.
Immature readers often fail to realize
when
they
do not understand what
they
have read.
They
can fail to realize what
they
know. And
they
can fail to realize what
they
need to learn from text
(Brown,
1980).
Another
way
of
explaining comprehension
failure has been
suggested by
Collins and Smith
(1982). They
describe four
types
of failure:
(a)
failure to
understand a
word; (b)
failure to understand a
sentence; (c)
failure to understand
how one sentence relates to
another;
and
(d)
failure to understand the text as a
whole.
A number of remedial actions can be taken if a reader fails to understand. These
actions
might
be
taught
to students in a
general learning
skills
course,
and the
25
DERRY AND MURPHY
students could
frequently
be reminded to use them in their
regular
classes. Collins
and Smith
(1982)
list remedies in the order of
increasing disruptiveness
to the flow
of
reading.
The least
disruptive strategy
is to
ignore
the word or
passage
and read
on if it is
unimportant
to the reader's
understanding
of the
message.
This
strategy
is followed
by suspending judgment, forming
a tentative
hypothesis, rereading
the
misunderstood
passage, rereading
the
previous context, and,
as a last
resort,
consulting
an
expert
source. The old
adage,
"Look it
up
and
you
will remember
it,"
is not recommended. We note that an
approach
to
vocabulary building
recommended
by Sternberg, Ketron,
and Powell
(1982)
also
emphasizes learning
from context.
In addition to the
approach
outlined
above,
there are other treatments that
successfully
have reduced
comprehension
failure in
experimental reading
studies.
Palincsar and Brown
(1983) point
out two instructional
techniques
that enhance
comprehension
and increase
comprehension-monitoring
behaviors: self-directed
questioning
and self-directed summarization. That
poor
readers can be induced to
employ checking
and
self-questioning tactics, thought
to enhance
comprehension
monitoring,
has been demonstrated
repeatedly (Andre
&
Anderson, 1978-79;
Brown, Campione,
&
Barclay, 1979; Wong
&
Jones, 1982).
To insure that students
use
comprehension-monitoring
tactics in situations
beyond
the immediate
training
environment where
they
are not
explicitly induced,
these
techniques might
be
trained in a
learning
skills course and
prompted
in various classes
throughout
the
academic
year.
Problem-Solving Training
A
major question among
scientists who
study problem solving
is whether or not
general problem solving
skills can be
taught
and
applied
across
many subject
domains. Rubinstein
(1975)
has characterized his decade of
experience
with "Pat-
terns of Problem
Solving,"
a
multidisciplinary, college-level strategies course,
as a
"remarkable record of success."
Yet, facing
a
history
of failure to find much transfer
from
strategy training
on one academic task to success on another
(Newell, 1980),
some researchers have voiced caution
regarding
claims that heuristic
strategies
can
be
taught
and
applied
across
many disciplines. Mayer (personal communication,
1984),
Greeno
(1980), Gagne (1980a, 1980b),
and
many cognitive psychologists
in
general (Newell, 1980)
still favor the view that
problem-solving
skills are
unique
to
the
subject domain,
and that
problem-solving
instruction should not be divorced
from
specific subject-matter instruction,
as with a detached curriculum.
Thus,
solution
strategies
for mathematics should be included in mathematics
lessons;
strategies
for
interpersonal problems
should be offered in a course on
interpersonal
communication;
and
reading strategies
instruction
belongs
in a
reading class,
not
in a course on
general problem solving.
This
argument
adds
weight
to the idea of
the embedded curriculum.
From another
perspective,
the belief that
people
can be
taught domain-general
strategies
has solid historical roots and a
reputable following. Dewey proposed
in
1933 that "reflective
thinking"
should be
taught
in school. As Baron
(1981) remarks,
"This is a
type
of
thinking
that considers
options
and reasons before
choosing
a
course of action or
adopting
a belief'
(p. 291). Following Dewey,
Baron
(1981)
proposed
a
prescriptive
model of
problem solving consisting
of five
phases: (a)
problem recognition; (b)
enumeration of
possibilities; (c) reasoning; (d) revision;
26
and
(e)
evaluation. He
argued
that
Dewey's proposal
could serve as a basis for a
domain-independent theory
of
intelligent thinking.
Numerous other scientists concerned with education
(e.g., Polya, 1957; Wallas,
1926)
also have claimed that
problem solving, including
math and science
problem
solving,
is best
taught using
a
general problem-solving plan.
The
steps
in Bransford's
(1984)
IDEAL
problem
solver are as follows:
Identify
the
problem;
define the
problem; explore
alternative
approaches;
act on a
plan;
and look at the effects.
Very
similar
general thinking
models have become standard tools for researchers
and
therapists
concerned with
cognitive-behavior
modification
(CBM).
Studies
have
applied
CBM to academic behaviors such as
reading, writing,
and arithmetic
skills. Numerous reviews of this research have
recently appeared,
and the consensus
is
generally
favorable
(Meichenbaum, 1980).
Belmont et al.
(1982) analyzed
the
superordinate processing
involved in
problem
solving
into 12 discreet
steps,
which
they
further condensed into the
following
six
phases: (a)
decide on a
goal; (b)
make a
plan
to reach the
goal; (c) try
the
plan; (d)
ask,
did the
plan work?; (e) ask,
did I follow the
plan?; (f) ask,
what was
wrong
with
the
plan?
As
mentioned,
7 of 121 studies
they
reviewed
provided
either direct or
indirect
training
in
superordinate processing.
Six of these 7
experiments produced
generalized
transfer of
training, although
no other
experiments reported
transfer.
One feasible
way
to avoid
impasse
between the
domain-general
and domain-
specific approaches
is to teach both.
Domain-general strategies
are
problem-solving
models that trade
power
for
general applicability
to
many
domains. Newell
(1980)
lists nine "weak"
strategies, including
the well-known
strategy
of means-end anal-
ysis.
Weak solution methods
provide general, fuzzy ways
of
responding
to
problems.
However,
when coordinated with
training
in the use of
specific processing
tech-
niques
that can be
employed
to
accomplish steps
in a
higher
level
strategy,
the
technique
becomes a model for
training
students in what Newell
(1980)
has called
a
weak-to-strong-method sequence:
"The weak methods can be taken to be
just
the
tip
of the
iceberg,
so that there exists an
expanding
cone of methods of ever
greater
specificity
and
power" (p. 186).
Weak-to-strong training
must
provide
varied
practice
in the
application
of a
high
order, general
solution
strategy, plus training
in
domain-specific procedures
that
underlie
implementation
of the
general strategy
in various academic contexts. This
approach
has been
adopted
for
Training
in Arithmetic
Problem-Solving
Skills
(TAPS),
a
program recently designed
for the Florida State
University Develop-
mental Research School
(Derry
&
Hawkes, 1985).
The
model
taught
is a
simple four-step procedure
called the four C's:
Clarify
the
problem;
choose a
solution; carry
out a
solution;
and check results. After
learning
the four
C's,
students are then trained in the
regular
classroom to use
specific
subroutines
that should enable them to
apply
this
general strategy
in the domain of arithmetic
word
problems.
The
following
outline summarizes some of the
specific
arithmetic
subskills that are included.
C-l:
Clarify
the
problem.
Kintsch and Greeno
(1985) note,
"The task of
compre-
hending
a
problem
text is to construct from the verbal form of the
problem
a
conceptual representation upon
which
problem-solving processes
can
operate" (p.
110).
1. Schema identification. As a first
step
in
helping
students
develop
the knowl-
edge representation skill, they
can be trained to associate different word
problems
27
DERRY AND MURPHY
with
problem
"schemata."
Mayer (1983) reports
a
study
in which untrained
judges
were able to sort into 18 schemata arithmetic textbook
problems. Mayer (1984)
also has reviewed research
supporting
the value of schema
training
as a method for
improving problem-solving ability.
2. Goal identification and
diagramming.
Students can be trained to
identify
the
goal
of a
problem
and to
represent
the
problem
as a schematic
diagram. Mayer's
(1984)
review
provides supporting
evidence for inclusion of this
training.
3. Elimination of irrelevant information. This
capability
involves
comprehen-
sion
strategies unique
to word
problems, whereby
"children learn to
pay
attention
to numbers and relations
among sets,
rather
than,
for
example,
to Joe's motives in
giving
Tom some
marbles,
or the
possibility
that Tom would rather have
apples
than marbles"
(Kintsch
&
Greeno, 1985, p. 112).
C-2: Choose a solution
procedure.
Before a
systematic
solution
procedure
can be
selected,
students must have available to them a
repertoire
of
possible problem-
solving strategies.
1. Word
problem
heuristics. One
approach
to
training strategy
involves
teaching
a
library
of solution
approaches
that have been discovered and validated
through
experimental
and artificial
intelligence
research with various
types
of
problems.
For
example,
Greeno and Simon
(1984)
have reviewed work that
suggests
that the
techniques
of
working
backward or forward from a
goal, setting up subgoals,
and
means-end
analysis might improve
students'
problem-solving
skills in the math
domain. The work of Rumelhart and Norman
(1981) suggests
that certain schema-
restructuring strategies
can be
taught.
These include
analogically mapping
a
prob-
lem onto a known schema and
systematically searching
for
mismatch, incomplete-
ness,
or deviation.
Furthermore,
several recent studies
(Briars
&
Larkin, 1984;
Nesher, 1982; Vergnaud, 1982)
have uncovered
patterns
in
solving
word
problems
that
might
serve as the basis for
developing
heuristics
training.
C-3:
Carry
out the solution method. The
importance
of
persistence, strategy,
and
careful work is
emphasized
while
problem-solving
is
practiced.
C-4.
Check work.
Training
for this
phase
could include how to estimate answers
as a basis for
judging
the
plausibility
of calculations. TAPS also trains a self-
questioning strategy
that
systematically
takes students back
through
each
step
of
the four C's and
helps
them to
identify
errors at each
step.
Kellis and
Derry (work
in
progress)
have found that low
ability
students do not
spontaneously
check their
work.
We note that arithmetic is not the
only
domain to which a
general problem-
solving
model could be related
through prompting.
In other classes or
grades,
students
might
be trained to
apply
the same
model to
other
disciplines. However,
the arithmetic domain is
suggested
as an
appropriate
vehicle for
initially introducing problem-solving training
because it is often
regarded
as a "watershed" in math and science
learning.
That
is,
if arithmetic
problem-
solving
is not mastered in
early grades,
the student's future academic
progress may
be
severely
hindered.
Affective Support Training
Works of numerous
psychologists
have
highlighted
the role
played by
affect in
the intellectual
functioning
that underlies
learning.
For
example, Piaget (1962)
28
noted,
"We must
agree
that at no
level,
at no
stage,
even in the
adult,
can we find
a behavior or a state which is
purely cognitive
without affect nor a
purely
affective
state without a
cognitive
element involved"
(p. 130).
More
recently,
Meichenbaum
has
published
studies and theoretical
arguments supporting
the idea that
training
programs
must take into consideration "the
inseparably
interactive
relationship
between
cognition
and affect"
(1980, p. 275).
One of his
students,
Henshaw
(1978),
studied the verbalizations of
high
and low "creative"
college
students trained to
talk aloud while
they engaged
in
problem-solving
tasks. The successful
problem
solvers differed from the
poor problem
solvers not
only
in the
pattern
and
sequencing
of their information
processes,
but also in the
frequency
and
types
of
affect
expressed.
Successful
subjects
were
significantly
more
likely
than less creative
subjects
to emit
expressions
of
self-support
and
positive
affect
(e.g., "Hey,
I'm
pretty good
at
this,"
or "Let me
try
to think of some other
ideas").
In
contrast,
the
less creative
subjects produced significantly
more inhibitive
ideation, reflecting
negative feelings
about themselves and the task
(e.g.,
"I'm
dumb!,"
or "I could
never do
this").
Related
findings
have been
reported by
Bloom and Broder
(1950),
Diener and Dweck
(1978),
and Goor and Sommerfield
(1975).
Drawing upon previous
work
by
Ellis
(1962),
Luria
(1961),
and
Vygotsky (1962),
Meichenbaum has
developed training
that
emphasizes self-monitoring
and control
of affective ideation in
problem
situatiens. For
example,
if a student is
engaging
in
self-arousing
and
counterproductive
self-statements while
studying,
the individual
is
taught
to
change
the covert
negative
self-statements to
positive
ones. Meichen-
baum
(1977)
has
argued
that
negative
ideation reflects an individual's activated
cognitive structure,
defined as the executive
processor
that determines when to
change, interrupt,
or continue a
thought.
He
speculates
that
by rehearsing positive
self-talk and other behaviors that are inconsistent with the
self-defeating attitude,
an individual
gradually
evolves a
cognitive
structure that
supports
more
appropriate
behavior.
Although restructuring techniques
have
predominantly
been researched with
clinical
populations
in
therapeutic settings,
work also has been done in educational
settings, primarily
with test-anxious individuals.
Typical
results were
reported by
Richardson, O'Neil,
and Grant
(1977),
who found that a
program
based on a
cognitive-attentional
view of test
anxiety
was successful in
reducing anxiety,
al-
though
there was
only slight, nonsignificant
treatment-related
improvement
in
posttest performance following
a
computer-managed
instructional
sequence.
Allen
(1972)
has
reported
that
improvement
in academic
performance
is more
likely
to
occur if
anxiety training
is
accompanied by counseling
and instruction in
study
techniques.
Training
mood
management
within educational contexts has
strongly
been
advocated
by
McCombs
(1981-82, 1982),
based on her
experience
with a
major
military training project.
One-fourth of the recruits in this technical
training
program
were
performing
at an
unsatisfactory
level.
Through testing
and
interviews,
McCombs identified four characteristics of this lower
quartile:
low interest and
motivation; high anxiety
toward
test-taking
and the course itself;
poor
information-
processing skills;
and the fact that students in the lower
quartile
were
younger
with
less
experience
in educational
settings.
McCombs
(1982) developed training
that
emphasized
modification of
dysfunctional
self-statements.
The most
striking
results of McCombs'
training program (McCombs, 1982,
29
DERRY AND MURPHY
personal communication, 1983)
was that
cognitive
modification altered the recruits'
perceptions concerning
the amount of control
imposed by
the
learning
environment
and their own
feelings
of
responsible
self-control. There have been a number of
studies on control-how a belief in control affects behavior and how
subjects
react
to loss of control. Even for events that are
objectively
determined
by chance,
subjects
can
develop
an illusion of control over the outcome
(Langer, 1978; Langer
&
Roth, 1975).
The
subject
who
perceives relatively
more control over the environ-
ment is more
likely
to
regard
the
surroundings
as
pleasant
and
report
a
positive
mood
(Rodin, Solomon,
&
Metcalf, 1978).
In a review of the research
findings
pertaining
to learned
helplessness, Thompson (1981)
noted that
personal
control
need not be
exercised,
or even be
real,
in order to effect attitude
changes.
We note that research and
theory suggests
that
cognitive restructuring
is an
evolutionary process, meaning
that it cannot occur
overnight
or even in a few
weeks. Meichenbaum
(1977)
has
argued
that
cognitive restructuring
is a
multistage
process,
each
stage requiring training
and intensive
practice. First, understanding
of the
concept negative
ideation must be learned.
Second,
awareness of one's own
negative thoughts
must be
brought
into consciousness.
Third, periodic
self-evalua-
tion of one's affective state must be habituated.
Fourth, subjects
must learn to
replace
their conscious
negative thoughts
with
positive
ones.
Finally,
the
positive
ideation habit must be
automated, through
extensive
practice
in
appropriate
situations over a
long period.
For
just
as
negative,
self-referential
worry may
be
distracting
in
study
or
test-taking situations, conscious,
belabored
positive
self-talk
also can
require
a
proportion
of available
processing
resources that
might
otherwise
be dedicated to the task at hand. The ultimate
goal
of
training
in affective
support
strategies
should be to
produce
an automatic
positive response
to
problem-solving
in
specific
task domains. The
prompting
method
previously suggested,
which
includes the
procedure
of
gradually fading explicit prompts, may
be able to
accomplish
this
goal.
Goal
setting
and
scheduling.
We do not review this
topic here,
but note that this
type
of
training frequently
has been offered in traditional
study
skills
programs
as
well as in several
cognitively
based
strategies training packages (e.g., Dansereau,
1985;
McCombs &
Dobrovolny, 1982;
Weinstein &
Underwood, 1985).
The
research literature on
goal setting
is not
sufficiently integrated
with
cognitive
information-processing theory.
Yet the
importance
of
goal setting
and
monitoring
skills is
emphasized by metacognitive theory, indicating
the need for a better
integration. Moreover,
there is
good
evidence
(e.g.,
Greiner &
Karoly, 1976)
that
students'
grades
do benefit from
training
in how to set
personal learning goals
and
how to monitor and reward
progress
toward
goal
attainment.
Summary
and Conclusions
Research and
cognitive theory amply support
our contention that
improvement
of
learning ability
is an
important
and viable
training goal
for school
districts,
military services,
and industrial
organizations.
In recent
years,
several well-elabo-
rated theoretical
perspectives
have
emerged
that
collectively provide
excellent
guidance
for the
design
of instructional
systems
that should
accomplish
this
goal.
Three of these are
Sternberg's guidelines
for
intelligence training (1983), Gagne's
theory
of
learning
and instruction
(Gagne, 1985),
and
metacognitive theory.
These
30
perspectives
all lead to the conclusion that
improvement
of
learning ability
neces-
sitates
development
not
only
of
specific learning skills,
which we know how to
teach,
but also an executive control mechanism that
automatically
accesses and
combines
learning
skills whenever
they
are needed. Researchers
working
from the
metacognitive perspective
are
focusing
on the
possibility
of
enhancing
students'
about
learning
as a basis for
developing
executive control
skills involved in maintenance and transfer of
learning
tactics.
However,
a theme
that
emerged strongly
and
repeatedly
in our review was that executive
learning
skills cannot be trained
easily
or
directly,
but must
gradually
be
developed
and
automated over an extended
period.
If follows that
improvement
of academic
aptitude
is most
likely
to result from a
thoughtful, systematic
curriculum that is
designed
to
complement
direct
training
in
learning strategies
and to
"engineer"
the
evolution of an efficient executive controller.
Two
types
of curriculum
designs
are
possible:
detached and embedded
training.
The detached
approach
is
exemplified by
the
learning strategies
courses of Weinstein
(e.g.,
Weinstein &
Underwood, 1985),
McCombs
(McCombs
&
Dobrovolny, 1982),
and Dansereau
(Dansereau, 1978).
One
strength
of detached courses is
generality:
They
teach
learning
skills that are
widely applicable
to a
variety
of academic
subjects.
A
problem
with
strategies training
that is detached from
subject-matter
courses is that it fails to
promote
recall and extended use of
learning strategies
in
real academic situations
beyond
the immediate
training
environment. Conse-
quently,
detached courses cannot
adequately develop
the executive
learning
skills.
An alternative "embedded"
approach
has been described
by
Jones
(1983)
and
Jones et al.
(1985),
and is
exemplified by
the
reading
and
vocabulary strategies
program
used in the
Chicago public
school
system.
Weinstein's
(1982)
"metacur-
riculum" for
remediating learning
deficits also
represents
a form of embedded
training.
This
strategies-training procedure incorporates learning
skills instruction
into standard
subject-matter courses, gradually increasing
the
difficulty
and
sophis-
tication of the
cognitive
skills that are
taught. Although
the embedded
approach
has not
yet
been tested
sufficiently
or
compared empirically
with the detached
approach,
it has several evident
strengths
and deficiencies.
The
strength
of an embedded
strategies
curriculum is that it forces extended
practice
and use of
learning
skills in a realistic semantic context.
Also,
Jones
(1983)
has described how embedded
training
can be
implemented
without extensive in-
service
training
for
teachers, provided
a school district can
purchase
or
develop
appropriate supplementary
materials that are coordinated with standard textbooks.
One weakness is that embedded
strategies
can
disrupt processing
of
subject-matter
material. Another
problem
is transfer of the
learning
skills
being taught.
A
problem-
solving
routine embedded in a mathematics course will not be
perceived by
most
students as useful in
language learning
or in next
year's algebra;
a
study strategy
taught by
the
language
arts teacher
may
not
generalize
to
history,
and so forth.
Metacognitive
researchers are
exploring
the
possibility
of
overcoming
this weak-
ness
by enhancing
direct tactics instruction with activities
designed
to
impart
declarative
knowledge
about tactics
utility
and their
range
of
applicability. However,
coordination
among
classes and teachers
may
be a
necessary
condition for
training
executive
learning skills,
since too
many independent
efforts could create confusion
and interference.
Furthermore,
the
concept
of
metacognitive development
itself
implies
a
growing
awareness of the
separation
between
cognitive
skills and meta-
31
DERRY AND MURPHY
knowledge.
We doubt that
many
teachers are
fully cognizant
of this distinction.
These observations favor the detached curriculum.
A
compromise
is to
provide well-planned,
short
programs
of detached
strategies
training, including
tactics and tactics-utilization
training,
followed
by
unobtrusive
prompting
in the actual instructional environment.
Derry (1984)
has called this an
"incidental
learning model,"
because the
by-product
of
having
students
actually
use
learning
skills at
appropriate
times should be the
development
of executive
control. The incidental
learning
model is
being
tested in
JSEP,
a basic skills CAI
curriculum under
development
for the
military.
JSEP
eventually
will have the
capability
of
fading prompts
over
time,
so that
responsibility
for initiation of
learning strategies
is transferred
gradually
from the instructional environment to
the student. The intent of this
procedure
is to foster
development
of
learning ability
over a
lengthy training period,
and thus the final verdict on its success will not be
forthcoming
in the immediate future.
However,
this
design
was
inspired
in
part by
Rigney's (1980)
well-elaborated
training theory,
and
supported
further
by cognitive
research on
automaticity,
the effects of
practice,
and
prompting.
Variations on the
incidental
learning
model could
prove
feasible for
many
school and
training
situations.
There exists a wealth of
empirical
research and several
good learning
skills
taxonomies to
guide
selection of
objectives
and
design
of
training.
We found no
integrated taxonomy
that covered a full
range
of student
populations
and
learning
domains. The choice of which
taxonomy
to use and which
learning
skills to train
is a matter of
selecting
what is
appropriate
for the student
population,
the
training
time
allowed,
and the
type
of
learning
material involved.
References
Allen,
G. J.
(1972).
The behavioral treatment of test
anxiety.
Behavior
Therapy, 3,
253-262.
Anderson,
R.
C.,
&
Biddle,
W. B.
(1975).
On
asking people questions
about what
they
are
reading.
In G. Bower
(Ed.), Psychology
of
learning
and motivation
(Vol. 9, pp. 89-132).
New York: Academic Press.
Anderson,
T. H.
(1980). Study strategies
and
adjunct
aids. In R.
Spiro,
B.
Bruce,
& W. Brewer
(Eds.),
Theoretical issues in
reading comprehension (pp. 483-500). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson,
T.
H.,
&
Armbruster,
B. B.
(1984). Studying.
In D.
Pearson,
R.
Barr,
M.
Kamil,
& P.
Mosenthal,
Handbook
of reading
research
(pp. 657-679).
New York:
Longman.
Andre,
M. E. D.
A.,
&
Anderson,
T. H.
(1978-79).
The
development
and evaluation of a
self-questioning study technique. Reading
Research
Quarterly,
14,
605-623.
Andre,
T.
(1979).
Does
answering higher-level questions
while
reading
facilitate
productive
learning?
Review
of
Educational Research, 49,
280-318.
Atkinson,
R.
C.,
&
Raugh,
M. R.
(1975).
An
application
of the mnemonic
keyword
method
to the
acquisition
of a Russian
vocabulary.
Journal
of Experimental Psychology.
Human
Learning
and
Memory,
1,
126-133.
Ausubel,
D. P.
(1963).
The
psychology of meaningful
verbal
learning:
An introduction to
school
learning.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel,
D.
P., Novak,
J.
D.,
&
Hanesian,
H.
(1978).
Educational
psychology:
A
cognitive
view
(2nd ed.).
New York:
Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Baker, L.,
&
Brown,
A. L.
(1984). Metacognitive
skills and
reading.
In D.
Pearson,
R.
Barr,
M.
Kamil,
& P. Mosenthal
(Eds.),
Handbook
of reading
research
(pp. 353-394).
New York:
Longman.
Baron,
J.
(1981).
Reflective
thinking
as a
goal
of education.
Intelligence,
5,
291-309.
Belmont,
J.
M., Butterfield,
E.
C.,
&
Ferretti,
R. P.
(1982).
To secure transfer of
training
32
instruct
self-management
skills. In D. K. Detterman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.),
How and
how much can
intelligence
be increased
(pp. 147-154). Norwood,
NJ: ABLEX.
Biggs,
J. B.
(1979).
Individual differences in
study processes
and the
quality
of
learning
outcomes.
Higher Education, 8, 381-394.
Biggs,
J.
B.,
&
Collis,
K. F.
(1982). Evaluating
the
quality of learning:
The SOLO
taxonomy
(structure of the observed
learning outcome).
Bloom,
B. S.
(1984).
The 2
sigma problem:
The search for methods of
group
instruction as
effective as one-to-one
tutoring.
Educational
Researcher, 13, 4-16.
Bloom, B.,
&
Broder,
L.
(1950). Problem-solving processes
of
college
students.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Bobrow,
S. A.
(1970). Memory
for words in sentences. Journal
of
Verbal
Learning
and Verbal
Behavior, 9, 363-372.
Bower,
G. H.
(1975). Cognitive psychology:
An introduction. In W. K. Estes
(Ed.),
Handbook
of learning
and
cognitive processes (Vol. 1, pp. 25-80). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bower,
G.
H.,
&
Reitman,
J. S.
(1972).
Mnemonic elaboration in multilist
learning.
Journal
of
Verbal
Learning
and Verbal
Behavior, 11,
478-485.
Bransford,
J. D.
(1984).
The ideal
problem
solver. New York: Freeman.
Briars,
D.
J.,
&
Larkin,
J. H.
(1984).
An
integrated
model of skill in
solving elementary
word
problems. Cognition
and
Instruction, 1,
245-296.
Briggs,
L. J.
(1977).
Instructional
design: Principles
and
applications. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:
Educational
Technology
Publications.
Brown,
A. L.
(1974).
The role of
strategic
behavior in retardate
memory.
In N. Ellis
(Ed.),
International review
of
research in mental retardation
(Vol. 7, pp. 55-113).
New York:
Academic Press.
Brown,
A. L.
(1978). Knowing when,
where and how to remember: A
problem
of
metacog-
nition. In R. Glaser
(Ed.),
Advances in instructional
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77-165).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown,
A. L.
(1980). Metacognitive development
and
reading.
In R. J.
Spiro,
B. C.
Bruce,
&
W. F. Brewer
(Eds.),
Theoretical issues in
reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown,
A.
L.,
&
Campione,
J. C.
(1982). Modifying intelligence
or
modifying cognitive
skills:
More than a semantic
quibble?
In D. K. Detterman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.),
How and how
much can
intelligence
be increased
(pp. 215-229). Norwood,
NJ: ABLEX.
Brown,
A.
L., Campione,
J.
C.,
&
Barclay,
C. R.
(1979). Training self-checking
routines for
estimating
test readiness: Generalization from list
learning
to
prose
recall. Child
Develop-
ment, 50,
501-512.
Brown,
A.
L., Campione,
J.
C.,
&
Day,
J. D.
(1981). Learning
to learn: On
training
students
to learn from texts. Educational
Researcher, 10,
14-21.
Brown,
A.
L.,
&
DeLoache,
J. S.
(1978). Skills, plans,
and
self-regulation.
In R. S.
Siegler
(Ed.),
Children's
thinking.
What
develops? Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown,
A.
L.,
&
Smiley,
S. S.
(1978).
The
development
of
strategies
for
studying
text. Child
Development, 49,
1076-1088.
Brown,
J.
S.,
&
Burton,
R. R.
(1978). Diagnostic
models for
procedural bugs
in basic
mathematical skills.
Cognitive
Science, 2,
155-192.
Bruner,
J.
S., Goodnow,
J.
J.,
&
Austin,
G. A.
(1956).
A
study of thinking.
New York:
Wiley.
Butterfield,
E.
C., Wambold, C.,
&
Belmont,
J. M.
(1973).
On the
theory
and
practice
of
improving
short-term
memory.
American Journal
of
Mental
Deficiency, 77,
654-669.
Campione,
J.
C.,
&
Armbruster,
B.
(1985). Acquiring
information from texts: An
analysis
of
four
approaches.
In J. W.
Segal,
S.
Chipman,
& R. Glaser
(Eds.), Thinking
and
learning
skills
(Vol. 1, pp. 297-317). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Campione,
J.
C., Brown,
A.
L.,
&
Ferrara,
R. A.
(1982).
Mental retardation and
intelligence.
In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of human
intelligence (pp. 392-490). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University
Press.
33
DERRY AND MURPHY
Chall,
J. S.
(1979).
The
great
debate: Ten
years later,
with a modest
proposal
for
reading
stages.
In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver
(Eds.), Theory
and
practice of early reading (Vol.
1, pp. 29-56). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, A.,
&
Smith,
E. C.
(1982). Teaching
the
process
of
reading comprehension.
In D. K.
Detterman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.),
How and how much can
intelligence
be increased
(pp.
173-186). Norwood,
NJ: ABLEX.
Cook,
L.
K.,
&
Mayer,
R. E.
(1983). Reading strategies training
for
meaningful learning
from
prose.
In M.
Pressley
& J. R. Levin
(Eds.), Cognitive strategy
research: Educational
applications (pp. 87-126).
New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Craik,
F. I.
M.,
&
Lockhart,
R. S.
(1972).
Levels of
processing:
A framework for
memory
research. Journal
of
Verbal
Learning
and Verbal
Behavior, 11,
671-684.
Craik,
F. I.
M.,
&
Tulving,
E.
(1975). Depth
of
processing
and the retention of words in
episodic memory.
Journal
of Experimental Psychology:
General, 104,
268-294.
Danner,
F.
W.,
&
Taylor,
A. M.
(1973). Integrated pictures
and relational
imagery training
in children's
learning.
Journal
of Experimental
Child
Psychology, 16,
47-54.
Dansereau,
D. F.
(1978).
The
development
of a
learning strategy
curriculum. In H. F.
O'Neill,
Jr.
(Ed.), Learning strategies (pp. 1-29).
Dansereau,
D. F.
(1985). Learning strategy
research. In J. W.
Segal,
S. F.
Chipman,
& R.
Glaser
(Eds.), Thinking
and
learning
skills
NJ: Erlbaum.
Dansereau,
D.
F., Collins,
K.
W., McDonald,
B.
A., Diekhoff, G., Garland, J., Holley,
C.
S.,
Evans,
S.
H., Irons, D., Long, G., Walker, C., Hilton, T., Lehman, D., Halemanu, M.,
Ellis,
A.
M.,
&
Fenker,
R. M.
(1978, September). Systematic training programfor enhancing
learning strategies
and
skills.
Further
development (AFHRL-TR-78-63). Lowry
Air Force
Base,
CO: Air Force Human Resources
Laboratory,
Technical
Training
Division.
Dansereau,
D.
F., Collins,
K.
W., McDonald,
B.
A., Holley,
C.
D., Garland,
J.
C., Diekhoff,
G.
M.,
&
Evans,
S. H.
(1979). Development
and evaluation of an effective
learning strategy
program.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
79,
64-73.
Derry,
S. J.
(1984, April). Strategy training:
An incidental
learning
model
for
CAI.
Paper
presented
at the annual
meeting
of the American Educational Research
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
Derry,
S.
J.,
&
Hawkes,
L.
(1985). Training
arithmetic
problem solving (TAPS): Proposalfor
a
prototype
model
utilizing intelligent
CAI.
Unpublished manuscript,
Florida State Univer-
sity.
Dewey,
J.
(1983).
How we think: A restatement
of
the relation
of reflective thinking
to the
educative
process. Boston,
MA: Heath.
Diener, C.,
&
Dweck,
C.
(1978). Analysis
of learned
helplessness:
Continuous
changes
in
performance, strategy,
and achievement
cognitions following
failure. Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
36,
461-482.
Ellis,
A.
(1962).
Reason and emotion in
psychotherapy.
New York:
Lyle
Stuart.
Engle,
R.
W.,
&
Nagle,
R. J.
(1979). Strategy training
and semantic
encoding
in
mildly
retarded children.
Intelligence,
3,
17-30.
Flavell,
J. H.
(1979). Metacognition
and
cognitive monitoring:
A new area of
psychological
inquiry.
American
Psychologist, 34,
906-911.
Flavell,
J. H.
(1981). Cognitive monitoring.
In W. P. Dickson
(Ed.),
Children's oral commu-
nication skills
(pp. 35-60).
Flavell,
J.
H.,
&
Wellman,
H. M.
(1977). Metamemory.
In R. V.
Kail, Jr.,
& J. W.
Hagen
(Eds.), Perspectives
on the
development of memory
and
cognition (pp. 3-34). Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fredericksen,
J. R.
(1983, April). Computer games for training
critical
reading
skills.
Paper
presented
at the annual
meeting
Association,
Montreal,
Canada.
Gagne,
R. M.
(1980a).
Learnable
aspects
of human
thinking.
In A. E. Lawson
(Ed.),
The
psychology of teaching for thinking
and
creativity.
1980
Yearbook,
Association for the
34
Education of Teachers in Science.
Columbus,
OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse
for
Science,
Mathematics,
and Environmental
Education,
Ohio State
University.
Gagne,
R. M.
(1980b).
Learnable
aspects
of
problem solving.
Educational
Psychologist, 15,
84-92.
Gagne,
R. M.
(1984). Learning
outcomes and their effects: Useful
categories
of human
performance.
American
Psychologist,
39, 377-385.
Gagne,
R. M.
(1985).
The conditions
of learning (4th ed.).
New York:
Holt,
Rinehart and
Winston.
Gagne,
R.
M.,
&
Briggs,
L. J.
(1974). Principles of
instructional
design.
New York:
Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne,
R.
M.,
&
Dick,
W.
(1962). Learning
measures in a self-instructional
program
in
solving equations. Psychological Reports, 10,
131-146.
Ghatala,
E.
S., Levin,
J.
R., Pressley, M.,
&
Lodico,
M. G.
(1985). Training cognitive strategy
monitoring
in children. American Educational Research
Journal, 22,
199-216.
Goor, A.,
&
Sommerfield,
R.
(1975).
A
comparison
of
problem-solving processes
of creative
students and noncreative students. Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, 67,
495-505.
Greeno,
J. G.
(1980).
Some
examples
of
cognitive
task
analysis
with instructional
implications.
In R. E.
Snow,
P.
Federico,
& W. E.
Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning,
and instruction
NJ: Erlbaum.
Greeno,
J.
G.,
&
Simon,
H. A.
(1984).
Problem
solving
and
reasoning. (Tech. Rep.
No.
UPTT/LRDC/ONR/APS-14). Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research and
Development
Cen-
ter.
Greiner,
J.
M.,
&
Karoly,
P.
(1976).
Effects of self-control
training
on
study activity
and
academic
performance:
An
analysis
of
self-monitoring, self-reward,
and
systematic-planning
components.
Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 2,
495-502.
Hayes,
J.
(1981).
The
complete problem
solver.
Philadelphia,
PA: Franklin Institute Press.
Henshaw,
D.
(1978).
A
cognitive analysis of
creative
problem-solving. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation, University
of Waterloo.
Hirst, W., Spelke,
E.
S., Reaves,
C.
C., Caharack, G.,
&
Neisser,
U.
(1980). Dividing
attention
without alteration or
automaticity.
Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 109,
98-
117.
Holley,
C.
D.,
&
Dansereau,
D. F.
(1984). Spatial learning strategies. Orlando,
FL: Academic
Press.
Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C.,
&
Lewis,
J.
(1975).
What does it mean to be
high
verbal?
Cognitive
Psychology,
7,
194-227.
Jones,
B. F.
(1983, April). Integrating learning strategies
and text research to teach
high
order
thinking
skills in schools.
Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of the American Educa-
tional Research
Association, Montreal,
Canada.
Jones,
B.
F., Amiran, M.,
&
Katims,
M.
(1985). Teaching cognitive strategies
and text
structures within
language
arts
programs.
In J. W.
Segal,
S. F.
Chipman,
& R. Glaser
(Eds.),
Thinking
and
learning
skills
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kellis,
A.
(1985). Metacognitive
assessment
of army
soldiers'
problem solving thought proc-
esses.
Unpublished
master's
thesis, Tallahassee,
FL: Florida State
University.
Kintsch, W.,
&
Greeno,
J. G.
(1985). Understanding
and
solving
word arithmetic
problems.
Psychological
Review, 92,
109-129.
Kurtz,
B.
E., Borkowski,
J. G.
(in press).
Children's
metacognition: Exploring
relations
between
knowledge, process,
and motivational variables. Child
Development.
Langer,
E. J.
(1978).
The
psychology
of chance.
Journalfor
the
Theory of
Social
Behavior, 7,
185-207.
Langer,
E.
J.,
&
Roth,
J.
(1975).
Heads I
win,
tails it's chance: The illusion of control as a
function of the
sequence
of outcomes in a
purely
chance task. Journal
of Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
32,
951-955.
Lesgold,
A.
M.,
&
Resnick,
L. B.
(1982).
How
reading
disabilities
develop: Perspectives
from
35
DERRY AND MURPHY
a
longitudinal study.
In J. P.
Das,
R.
Mulcahy,
& A. E. Wall
(Eds.), Theory
and research
in
learning disability (pp. 155-188).
New York: Plenum.
Lewis,
C.
H.,
&
Anderson,
J. R.
(1976).
Interference with real world
knowledge. Cognitive
Psychology,
7,
311-335.
Liberty, C.,
&
Ornstein,
P. A.
(1973). Age
differences in
organization
and recall: The effects
of
training
in
categorization.
Journal
of Experimental
Child
Psychology,
15,
169-186.
Locke,
E.
Q. (1975).
A
guide
to
effective study.
New York:
Springer.
Lodico,
M.
G., Ghatala,
E.
S., Levin,
J.
R., Pressley, M.,
&
Bell,
J. A.
(1983).
The effects of
strategy-monitoring training
on children's selection of effective
memory strategies.
Journal
of Experimental
Child
Psychology,
35,
263-277.
Luria,
A.
(1961).
The role
of speech
in the
regulation of
normal and abnormal behaviors. New
York:
Liveright.
Marslen-Wilson,
W.
D.,
&
Teuber,
H. L.
(1975). Memory
for remote events in
anterograde
amnesia:
Recognition
of
public figures
from
newsphotographs. Neuropsychologia, 13,
353-
364.
Mayer,
R. E.
(1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition.
New York: W. H. Freeman.
Mayer,
R. E.
(1984, April).
Learnable
aspects of problem solving:
Some
examples. Paper
presented
at the annual
meeting
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
Mayer,
R.
E.,
&
Bromage,
B. K.
(1980).
Different recall
protocols
for technical texts due to
advance
organizers.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
72,
209-225.
McCombs,
B. L.
(1981-82). Transitioning learning strategies
research into
practice:
Focus on
the student in technical
training.
Journal
of
Instructional
Development, 5,
10-17.
McCombs,
B. L.
(1982). Enhancing
student motivation
through positive self-control
strategies.
Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of the American
Psychological Association,
Wash-
ington,
DC.
McCombs,
B. L.
(1984, April). Metacognitive
and
cognitive components of
motivation:
Teaching self-awareness
and
self-management
via a
problem-solving approach. Paper
presented
at the annual
meeting
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
McCombs,
B.
L.,
&
Dobrovolny,
J. L.
(1982).
Student motivational skill
training package:
Evaluation
for
Air Force technical
training (AFHRL-TP-82-31). Lowry
Air Force
Base,
CO:
Logistics
and Technical
Training
Division.
McKeachie,
W. J.
(1984). Spatial strategies: Critique
and educational
implications.
In C. D.
Holley
& D. F. Dansereau
(Eds.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications,
and
related issues
(pp. 301-312). Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Meichenbaum,
D. H.
(1977). Cognitive
behavior
modification.
An
integrative approach.
New
York: Plenum Press.
Meichenbaum,
D. H.
(1980).
A
cognitive-behavioral perspective
on
intelligence. Intelligence,
4,
271-283.
Meichenbaum,
D.
H.,
&
Asarnow,
J.
(1979). Cognitive-behavior
modification and
metacog-
nitive
development: Implications
for the classroom. In P. Kendall & S. Hollen
(Eds.),
Cognitive-behavioral
interventions:
Theory,
research and
procedures.
New York: Academic
Press.
Meyer,
B. J. F.
(1977).
The structure of
prose:
Effects on
learning
and
memory
and
implications
for educational
practice.
In R. C.
Anderson,
R. J.
Spiro,
& W. E.
Montague
(Eds.), Schooling
and the
acquisition of knowledge (pp. 179-200). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Murphy,
D.
A.,
&
Derry,
S. J.
(1984, April). Description of
an
introductory learning strategies
course
for
the Job Skills Education
Program. Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of the
American Educational Research
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
Neisser,
U.
(1976). Cognition
and
reality.
San Francisco: Freeman.
Nesher,
P.
(1982).
Levels of
description
in the
analysis
of addition and subtraction. In T. P.
36
Carpenter,
J. M.
Moser,
& T.
Romberg (Eds.),
Addition and subtraction: A
cognitive
perspective (pp. 39-59). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Neves,
D.
M.,
&
Anderson,
J. R.
(1981). Knowledge compilation:
Mechanisms for the
automatization of
cognitive
skills. In J. R. Anderson
(Ed.), Cognitive
skills and their
acquisition (pp. 57-84). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell,
A.
(1980).
One final word. In D. T. Tuma & F. Reif.
(Eds.),
Problem
solving
and
education
(pp. 184-187). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell, A.,
&
Simon,
H. A.
(1972).
Human
problem solving. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Norman,
D.
A.,
&
Bobrow,
D. G.
(1975).
On data-limited and resource-limited
processes.
Cognitive Psychology,
7,
44-64.
Ortony,
A.
(1975). Why metaphors
are
necessary
and not
just
nice. Educational
Theory, 25,
45-53.
O'Sullivan,
J.
T.,
&
Pressley,
M.
(1984). Completeness
of instruction and
strategy
transfer.
Journal of
Experimental
Child
Psychology,
38,
275-288.
Palincsar,
A.
S.,
&
Brown,
A. L.
(1983). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring
activities
(Tech. Rep.
No.
269). Urbana,
IL: Center for the
Study
of
Reading, University
of Illinois.
Pflaum,
S.
W., Walberg,
H.
J., Karegianes,
M.
L.,
&
Rasher,
S.
(1980). Reading
instruction:
A
quantitative synthesis.
Educational Researcher, 9,
12-18.
Piaget,
J.
(1962).
The relation of
affectivity
to
intelligence
in the mental
development
of the
child. Bulletin of
Menninger
Clinic, 26,
129-137.
Polya,
A.
(1957).
How to solve it. Garden
City,
NY:
Doubleday-Anchor.
Postman, L.,
&
Gray,
W.
(1977).
Maintenance of
prior
associations and
proactive
inhibition.
Journal
of Experimental Psychology:
Human
Learning
and
Memory, 79,
255-263.
Pressley, M., Borkowski,
J.
G.,
&
O'Sullivan,
J. T.
(1984). Memory strategy
instruction is
made of this:
Metamemory
and durable
strategy
use. Educational
Psychologist, 19,
94-
107.
Pressley, M.,
&
Levin,
J. R.
(Eds.). (1983). Cognitive strategy
research:
Psychological foun-
dations. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M., Levin,
J.
R.,
&
Bryant,
S. L.
(1983). Memory strategy
instruction
during
adolescence: When is
explicit
instruction needed? In M.
Pressley
& J. R. Levin
(Eds.),
Cognitive strategy
research:
Psychological foundations (pp. 25-44).
New York:
Springer-
Verlag.
Pressley, M., Levin,
J.
R.,
&
Ghatala,
E. S.
(1984). Memory strategy monitoring
in adults
and children. Journal
of
Verbal
Learning
and Verbal
Behavior, 23,
270-288.
Richardson,
F.
C., O'Neil,
H.
F.,
&
Grant,
R.
D.,
Jr.
(1977). Development
and evaluation of
an automated test
anxiety
reduction
program
for a
computer-based learning
environment.
In J.
Sieber,
H.
O'Neil,
& S. Tobias
(Eds.), Anxiety, learning,
and instruction
(pp.
173-
200). Hillsdale,
NJ.: Erlbaum.
Rickards,
J. P.
(1976, November). Stimulating high-level comprehension by interspersing
questions
in text
passages.
Educational
Technology,
16,
13-17.
Rigney,
J. W.
(1978). Learning strategies:
A theoretical
perspective.
In H. F.
O'Neil,
Jr.
(Ed.),
Learning strategies (pp. 165-205).
Rigney,
J. W.
(1980). Cognitive learning strategies
and dualities in information
processing.
In R. E.
Snow,
P.
Federico,
& W. E.
Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning,
and instruction
NJ: Erlbaum.
Robinson,
R. P.
(1941).
Effective
study.
New York:
Harper
& Row.
Rodin, J., Solomon,
S.
K.,
&
Metcalf,
J.
(1978).
Role of control in
perceptions
of
density.
Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
36,
988-999.
Rohwer,
W.
D.,
Jr.
(1980).
An elaborative
conception
of learner differences. In R. E.
Snow,
P. A.
Federico,
& W. E.
Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning
and instruction
(pp. 23-43).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
37
DERRY AND MURPHY
Rubinstein,
M. F.
(1975).
Patterns
of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rumelhart,
D. E.
(1975).
Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins
(Eds.), Representation
and
understanding:
Studies in
cognitive
science
(pp. 211-236).
New
York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart,
D. E.
(1977). Understanding
and
summarizing
brief stories. In D.
Laberge
& S.
J. Samuels
(Eds.),
Basic
processes
in
reading. Perception
and
comprehension (pp. 265-303).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart,
D.
E.,
&
Norman,
D. A.
(1981). Analogical processes
in
learning.
In J. R.
Anderson
(Ed.), Cognitive
skills and their
acquisition (pp. 335-359). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Salisbury,
D. F.
(1984, April). Cognitive psychology
and its
implications for designing
drill
and
practice programs for computers. Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of the American
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
Samuels,
S.
J.,
&
Kamil,
M. L.
(1984).
Models of the
reading process.
In D.
Pearson,
R.
Barr,
M.
Kamil,
& P. Mosenthal
(Eds.),
Handbook
of reading
research
(pp. 185-224).
New York:
Longman.
Schank,
R. C.
(1980).
How much
intelligence
is there in artificial
intelligence? Intelligence, 4,
1-13.
Shiffrin,
R.
M.,
&
Schneider,
W.
(1977).
Controlled and automatic human information
processing:
II.
Perceptual learning,
automatic
attending
and a
general theory. Psychological
Review, 84,
127-190.
Simon,
H. A.
(1969).
Sciences
of
the
artificial. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Snowman, J.,
&
McCown,
R.
(1984, April). Cognitive processes
in
learning:
A model
for
investigating strategies
and tactics.
Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of the American
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
Stanger,
D.
(Project Director). (1982). Computer-assisted problem solving
skill
practice.
Unpublished
Title IV Document.
Rochester,
MN: Rochester Public Schools.
Sternberg,
R. J.
(1977). Intelligence, information processing
and
analogical reasoning:
The
componential analysis
of human abilities.
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg,
R. J.
(1979).
The nature of mental abilities. American
Psychologist, 34,
214-230.
Sternberg,
R. J.
(1983).
Criteria for intellectual skills
training.
Educational
Researcher, 12,
6-
12.
Sternberg,
R. J.
(1985). Beyond
IQ:
A triarchic
theory of
human
intelligence. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University
Press.
Sternberg,
R.
J., Ketron,
J.
L.,
&
Powell,
J. S.
(1982). Componential approaches
to the
training
of
intelligent performance.
In D. K. Detterman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.),
How and
how much can
intelligence
be increased
(pp. 155-172). Norwood,
NJ: ABLEX.
Thompson,
S. C.
(1981).
Will it hurt less if I can control it? A
complex
answer to a
simple
question. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
89-101.
Torgesen,
J. K.
(1977).
The role of
nonspecific
factors in the task
performance
of
learning
disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 10,
27-34.
Tulving, E.,
&
Psotka,
J.
(1971).
Retroactive inhibition in free recall:
Inaccessibility
of
information available in the
memory
store. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 87,
1-8.
Tuma,
D.
T.,
&
Reif,
F.
(Eds.) (1980).
Problem
solving
and education: Issues in
teaching
and
research.
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Underwood,
B. J.
(1964). Laboratory
studies of verbal
learning.
In E. R.
Hilgard (Ed.),
Theories of learning
and instruction
(Sixty-third Yearbook,
Part
1, pp. 133-152). Chicago:
National
Society
for the
Study
of Education.
Vaughan,
E.
(1981). Cognitive strategies.
A review
of
some recent literature.
(Contract
No.
DABT60-81-C-006,
U.S.
Army Training Support Center). Pittsburgh,
PA:
Applied
Science
Associates.
Vergnaud,
G.
(1982).
A classification of
cognitive
tasks and
operations
of
thought
involved
in addition and subtraction
problems.
In T. P.
Carpenter,
J. M.
Moser,
& T.
Romberg
(Eds.),
Addition and subtraction: A
cognitive perspective (pp. 39-59). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
38
Vygotsky,
L.
(1962). Thought
and
language.
New York:
Wiley.
Wallas,
A.
(1926).
The art
of thinking.
London: Watts.
Waters,
H.
S.,
&
Andreassen,
C.
(1983).
Children's use of
memory strategies
under instruction.
In M.
Pressley
& J. R. Levin
(Eds.), Cognitive strategy
research:
Psychologicalfoundations
(pp. 3-21).
New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Weinstein,
C. E.
(1982).
A metacurriculum for
remediating learning strategies
deficits in
academically underprepared
students. In L. Noel & R. Levitz
(Eds.),
How to succeed with
academically underprepared
students. Iowa
City:
American
College Testing
Service Na-
tional Center for
Advancing
Educational Practice.
Weinstein,
C.
E., Cubberly,
W.
E., Wicker,
F.
W., Underwood,
V.
L., Roney,
L.
K.,
&
Duty,
D. C.
(1981). Training
versus instruction in the
acquisition
of
cognitive learning strategies.
Journal of Educational
Psychology, 6,
159-166.
Weinstein,
C.
E.,
&
Mayer,
R. E.
(1985).
The
teaching
of
learning strategies.
In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
research on
teaching (3rd ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Weinstein,
C.
E.,
&
Underwood,
V. L.
(1985). Learning strategies:
The how of
learning.
In J.
Segal,
S.
Chipman,
& R. Glaser
(Eds.), Relating
instruction to basic research
(pp. 241-258).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstein,
C.
E., Underwood,
V.
L., Wicker,
F.
W.,
&
Cubberly,
W. E.
(1979). Cognitive
learning strategies:
Verbal and
imaginal
elaboration. In H. F. O'Neil & C. D.
Spielberger,
Cognitive
and
affective learning strategies (pp. 45-75).
Winograd,
T.
(1975).
Frame
representations
and the
declarative/procedural controversy.
In
D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins
(Eds.), Representation
and
understanding:
Studies in
cognitive
science
(pp. 185-210).
Wittrock,
M. C.
(1984). Teaching reading comprehension
to adults in basic skills courses
(Vol.
2). (MDA 903-82-C-0169). Alexandria,
VA: U.S.
Army
Research Institute.
Wong,
B. Y.
L.,
&
Jones,
W.
(1982). Increasing metacomprehension
in
learning
disabled and
normally achieving
students
through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 5,
228-240.
AUTHORS
SHARON J.
DERRY,
Assistant
Professor, Department
of
Psychology
and Center
for Educational
Technology,
Florida State
University, Tallahassee,
FL 32306.
Specializations:
Instructional
psychology, computer-assisted
instruction.
DEBRA A.
MURPHY, Psychology Resident, Department
of
Psychiatry
and Hu-
man
Behavior, University
of
Mississippi
Medical
Center,
2500 North State
St.,
Jackson,
MS 39216.
Specializations:
Child clinical
psychology,
school
psychol-
ogy.
39

Gagne

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gagne

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Designing Systems That Train Learning Ability: From Theory to Practice

Author(s): Sharon J. Derry and Debra A. Murphy

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi