No abstract

Mechanism for training students to devise their own strategies for learning are discussed. Training students to use strategies that fail to appraise the study of the utility of their action fail to inculcate the necessary self-awareness, whereas studies where students are both informed of the outcome of their action and instructed in self corrective procedures were much more successful at securing desirable effects of training. The general theme of this paper is how we can devise instructional routines to help students learn to learn. The dominant questions that have motivated training studies in developmental psychology are: Can we improve upon students' spontaneous performance and, further, can we enhance their ability to perform future tasks of the same kind? There are several possible outcomes of training studies aimed at improving students' academic .performance. Such studies can fail, of course, in that they may result in no worthwhile changes in students' performance. They can succeed by adding substantially to the students' knowledge, or they can succeed by instructing students in ways to enhance their own knowledge--i.e., by promoting learning-to-learn activities. It is this third outcome that we think is most desirable and that we will consider in this paper.In order to ensure that we share a common vocabulary, we would like to begin by introducing distinctions among three interrelated types of knowledge that influence students' current state of learning and their ability to profit from instruction. These three types of knowledge are strategic, content or factual, and metacognitive information (Brown, 1975; Chi, in press).Strategic knowledge refers to the repertoire of rules, procedures, tricks, routines, etc. for making learning a more efficient activity (Brown, 1975). Content or factual knowledge refers to information that learners have concerning the subject domain under consideration andLearning to Learn 3 their general knowledge of the world Brown, 1975, and in press; Chi, in press). Metacognitive knowledge refers to the information that learners have concerning the state of their own knowledge base and the task demands they are facing (Brown, 1975, and in press;Flavell & Wellman, 1977).In principle, training studies can aim at improving all three kinds of knowledge, but in actual fact it is easier to effect change in some domains than in others, as we shall see. The majority of the developmental training studies have concentrated on deliberate strategies of learning, or strategies for promoting recall of information, mainly because of the relative ease of effecting improvement in this domain. But rote recall, although valuable, is not the only desirable outcome of learning activities.Often we want to enhance students' ability to understand the significance of the material they are learning rather than to improve their ability to recall it. Activities that promote recall need not necessarily be optimal for promoting other learning products (Bransford, 1979; Brown, in press;Nitsch, 1977)....

Mechanism for training students to devise their own strategies for learning are discussed. Training students to use strategies that fail to appraise the study of the utility of their action fail to inculcate the necessary self-awareness, whereas studies where students are both informed of the outcome of their action and instructed in self corrective procedures were much more successful at securing desirable effects of training. The general theme of this paper is how we can devise instructional routines to help students learn to learn. The dominant questions that have motivated training studies in developmental psychology are: Can we improve upon students' spontaneous performance and, further, can we enhance their ability to perform future tasks of the same kind? There are several possible outcomes of training studies aimed at improving students' academic .performance. Such studies can fail, of course, in that they may result in no worthwhile changes in students' performance. They can succeed by adding substantially to the students' knowledge, or they can succeed by instructing students in ways to enhance their own knowledge--i.e., by promoting learning-to-learn activities. It is this third outcome that we think is most desirable and that we will consider in this paper.In order to ensure that we share a common vocabulary, we would like to begin by introducing distinctions among three interrelated types of knowledge that influence students' current state of learning and their ability to profit from instruction. These three types of knowledge are strategic, content or factual, and metacognitive information (Brown, 1975; Chi, in press).Strategic knowledge refers to the repertoire of rules, procedures, tricks, routines, etc. for making learning a more efficient activity (Brown, 1975). Content or factual knowledge refers to information that learners have concerning the subject domain under consideration andLearning to Learn 3 their general knowledge of the world Brown, 1975, and in press; Chi, in press). Metacognitive knowledge refers to the information that learners have concerning the state of their own knowledge base and the task demands they are facing (Brown, 1975, and in press;Flavell & Wellman, 1977).In principle, training studies can aim at improving all three kinds of knowledge, but in actual fact it is easier to effect change in some domains than in others, as we shall see. The majority of the developmental training studies have concentrated on deliberate strategies of learning, or strategies for promoting recall of information, mainly because of the relative ease of effecting improvement in this domain. But rote recall, although valuable, is not the only desirable outcome of learning activities.Often we want to enhance students' ability to understand the significance of the material they are learning rather than to improve their ability to recall it. Activities that promote recall need not necessarily be optimal for promoting other learning products (Bransford, 1979; Brown, in press;Nitsch, 1977)....

Good and poor readers drawn from seventh-grade classes read one prose passage and listened to a second one. They were tested, following each passage, for comprehension and recall of that passage. Under both reading and listening conditions, good readers recalled a greater proportion of the stories, and the likelihood of their recalling a particular unit was a clear function of the unit's structural importance; poor readers recalled less of the stories, and their recall protocols were not as clearly related to variations in structural importance. Performance following reading was significantly correlated (r = .85) with performance following listening.The results indicate that poor readers suffer from a general comprehension deficit, and that similar processes are involved in reading and listening comprehension.

No abstract