T237 What Can We Do to Help Our Students Become Better Learners? Fostering the Development of Metacognition and Self-Regulation I
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
C124
THE EFFECT OF STUDENT MOTIVATION AND LEARNING STRATEGIES ON PERFORMANCE IN PHYSICAL GEOLOGY COURSES: GARNET PART 4, STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Paper number: T237-14
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 11:25 AM – 11:40 AM
Authors
-
Ryan M. NellUniversity of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
-
Dexter PerkinsUniversity of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND
-
Rachel TeasdaleCSU Chico, Chico, CA
-
Tatiana VislovaSUNY College at Oneonta, Shoreview, MN
-
Karl WirthMacalester College, Saint Paul, MN
-
Ronald K. MatheneyUniversity of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND
-
Matthew W. NymanUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
-
Jennifer A. StempienUniversity of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
-
David A. BuddUniversity of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
-
Lisa A. GilbertWilliams College and Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT
-
Megan H. JonesNorth Hennepin Community College, Brooklyn Park, MN
-
Catharine KnightThe University of Akron, Akron, OH
-
Katrien J. KraftMesa Community College, Mesa, AZ
Abstract
Other key subscales of the MSLQ had effects that varied by semester. In Fall 2008, students’ scores on the peer learning (PL) and control of learning beliefs (CB) subscales each had a negative correlation with their performance. Students who score high on the peer learning subscale often study with peers. Those who score high on the control of learning beliefs subscale feel that their individual study efforts determine their academic performance. In Spring 2009, students’ scores on the intrinsic goal (IG) subscale had a negative correlation with their performance, but students’ scores on the task value (TV) subscale had a positive correlation with their performance. Students who score high on the intrinsic goal subscale strive to thoroughly understand course content and they prefer course material that challenges them and arouses their curiosity. Students who score high on the task value subscale like the course content and find it useful.
Our results suggest that strategies to improve students’ self-efficacy have a strong chance of improving student performance in college physical geology classes.
*Fall 2008: Final Score (out of 100) = 74.6 + 6.2(SE) – 3.3(CB) – 1.2(PL), R2 = 0.26
Spring 2009: Final Score (out of 100) = 64.0 + 5.2(SE) – 4.5(IG) + 2.6(TV), R2 = 0.21