Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 24 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ashrafzadeh S, Andishmand V, Manzari H. Explaining the Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies of Students with Learning Disabilities Based on Motivational Beliefs and Mediation of Learning Styles. MEJDS 2020; 10 :24-24
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1244-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1244-en.html
1- Department of Educational Psychology, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (2922 Views)
Background & Objectives: A learning disorder is a disability in one or more of the psychological processes necessary to understand or use language, writing or speech, which may be in the form of disability in listening, thinking, speaking, reading, spelling and performing mathematical calculations. Student learning disruptions lead to academic failure, drop in motivation and graduation, and will have psychological and economic harm to the child and family and the education system. One of the factors associated with motivational beliefs is cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Students’ motivational beliefs in the amount of learning and using cognitive strategies and self–regulation learning are very influential and are the determinants of academic achievement. Many students' problems in learning related to weak cognitive and metacognitive skills. Cognitive strategies help them to connect new information, combine them with previously learned information, and prepare them for storage in long–term memory. Metacognition is the acquisition of knowledge and recognition of weaknesses, strengths, and cognitive activities that guide them in the process of cognitive activity. The main objective of this study was to explain the cognitive and metacognitive strategies of students with learning disabilities based on motivational beliefs and mediation of learning styles.
Methods: The research method was descriptive, correlational and the statistical population of the study included students with elementary school (4th–6th grade) learning disorder in Kerman (south of Iran) during the academic year of 1969–97. For this purpose, 202 students with elementary school learning disorder was selected using available sampling method from Kerman learning disability centers, then the cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Dawson and McAdamry, 2004), learning styles (Colb, 2000), and motivational beliefs (Pinttir and Drogrot, 1990) (three dimensions, internal evaluation, and test anxiety) were performed on them. Data were analyzed using structural equation model (SEM).
Results: The final model showed a specific pattern of relationships between research variables, which explained 0.44 of self–efficacy, 37.0 internal evaluation and 22.0 exam anxiety (p≤0.001). The fitting indexes of the model showed the fit of the model with the data (p=0.61, χ2=1.81, RMSEA=0.01, GFI=1.00, AGFI=0.99, CFI=1.00, NFI=0.99). The direct effect of cognitive strategies on motivational support was not confirmed, but its indirect effect was confirmed by the mediation of learning styles on three dimensions of motivational beliefs. Direct and indirect effects of meta–cognitive strategies were significant on all three dimensions of motivational beliefs (p≤0.001).
Conclusion: Metacognitive strategies were more effective than cognitive strategies explaining the motivational beliefs of students, which indicates the importance of the role of meta–cognitive strategies in motivational beliefs of students with learning disabilities. The results of this study indicated that the quantity and quality of motivational beliefs (self–efficacy, internal evaluation, and test anxiety) influenced by cognitive and meta–cognitive strategies of students with learning disabilities.
Methods: The research method was descriptive, correlational and the statistical population of the study included students with elementary school (4th–6th grade) learning disorder in Kerman (south of Iran) during the academic year of 1969–97. For this purpose, 202 students with elementary school learning disorder was selected using available sampling method from Kerman learning disability centers, then the cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Dawson and McAdamry, 2004), learning styles (Colb, 2000), and motivational beliefs (Pinttir and Drogrot, 1990) (three dimensions, internal evaluation, and test anxiety) were performed on them. Data were analyzed using structural equation model (SEM).
Results: The final model showed a specific pattern of relationships between research variables, which explained 0.44 of self–efficacy, 37.0 internal evaluation and 22.0 exam anxiety (p≤0.001). The fitting indexes of the model showed the fit of the model with the data (p=0.61, χ2=1.81, RMSEA=0.01, GFI=1.00, AGFI=0.99, CFI=1.00, NFI=0.99). The direct effect of cognitive strategies on motivational support was not confirmed, but its indirect effect was confirmed by the mediation of learning styles on three dimensions of motivational beliefs. Direct and indirect effects of meta–cognitive strategies were significant on all three dimensions of motivational beliefs (p≤0.001).
Conclusion: Metacognitive strategies were more effective than cognitive strategies explaining the motivational beliefs of students, which indicates the importance of the role of meta–cognitive strategies in motivational beliefs of students with learning disabilities. The results of this study indicated that the quantity and quality of motivational beliefs (self–efficacy, internal evaluation, and test anxiety) influenced by cognitive and meta–cognitive strategies of students with learning disabilities.
Keywords: Metacognitive strategies, Cognitive strategies, Motivational beliefs, Learning intermediaries.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Moll K, Kunze S, Neuhoff N, Bruder J, Schulte-Körne G. Specific learning disorder: prevalence and gender differences. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e103537. [DOI]
2. Rosário P, Núñez JC, Valle A, González-Pienda J, Lourenço A. Grade level, study time, and grade retention and their effects on motivation, self-regulated learning strategies, and mathematics achievement: a structural equation model. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2013;28(4):1311–31. [DOI]
3. Linnenbrink EA, Pintrich PR. The role of self-efficacy beliefs instudent engagement and learning intheclassroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2003;19(2):119–37. [DOI]
4. Montague M. Self-Regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2008;31(1):37–44. [DOI]
5. de Boer H, Donker AS, Kostons DDNM, van der Werf GPC. Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2018;24:98–115. [DOI]
6. Cartwright KB, Coppage EA, Lane AB, Singleton T, Marshall TR, Bentivegna C. Cognitive flexibility deficits in children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2017;50:33–44. [DOI]
7. Mesrabadi J, Erfani Abab E. Meta-Analysis of the relationship between learning strategies and academic achievement. Cognitive Strtegies in Learning. 2014;2(2):97–118. [Persian] [Article]
8. Brouwer KL. Writing motivation of students with language impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2012;28(2):189–210. [DOI]
9. Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH. Motivation: An Essential Dimension of Self-Regulated Learning. In: Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Mahwah, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2008.
10. Abedini Y, Bagherian R, Kadkhodaie MS. The relation among motivational beliefs, cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic achievement: Testing of alternative models. Advances in Cognitive Science. 2010;12(3):34–48. [Persian] [Article]
11. Erfani N. The intermediary role of learning motivation in predicting academic achievement based on the students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies. 2017;14(26):167–98. [Persian] [DOI]
12. Joo Y-J, Bong M, Choi H-J. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. ETR&D. 2000;48(2):5–17. [DOI]
13. Harputlu L, Ceylan E. The Effects of Motivation and Metacognitive Strategy Use on EFL Listening Proficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;158:124–31. [DOI]
14. Lee J, Zentall SS. Reading motivation and later reading achievement for students with reading disabilities and comparison groups (ADHD and typical): A 3-year longitudinal study. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2017;50:60–71. [DOI]
15. Bostrom L, Lassen LM. Unraveling learning, learning styles, learning strategies and meta-cognition. Education & Training. 2006;48:178–89.
16. Seyf AA. Modern Educational Psychology: Psychology of Learning and Instructoin. Tehran: Doran Publication; 2015, pp:202–55. [Persian]
17. Shooshtari M. Investigating standardization, of cognition and metacognition strategies questionnaire of mcinroy and dawson on junior high school students of Isfahan city. Quarterly of Educational Measurement. 2013;4(14):169–86. [Persian] [Article]
18. Saghi S, Chalibanlou G, Fazel A, Mohammadi M. A study of the relationship between learning styles and academic achievement with mediating of Meta cognitive awareness among the university students. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation. 2011;4(13):79–94. [Persian] [Article]
19. Arami Z, Manshaee GR, Abedi A, Sharifee T. The comparison of motivational beliefs, metacognitive skills and self-regulation learning between gifted & ordinary students of the city of Isfahan. New Educational Approaches. 2016;11(2):59–70. [Persian] [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
