Context moderates students' self-reports about how they study.

Abstract

Models of self-regulate d learning hypothesize that learners selectively match study tactics to varying tasks and diverse goals. In this study, relative to each of 3 contexts—reading for learning, completing a brief essay, and studying for an exam—students rated the frequency with which they applied 26 study tactics, used 20 textbook features and other resources, and adopted 30 goals for studying. Analyses revealed substantial context effects in these self-reports. Nine separate principal component analyses of ratings corresponding to cells in a 3 X 3 matrix of (a) tactics, resources, and goals by (b) contexts, identified considerable discrepancies in items' assignment to components, and heterogeneous loadings across contexts. These findings bolster the premise that students' reports of self-regulati ng studying behaviors are context specific. They also raise questions about self-reports of self-regulate d learning that do not reflect context effects. Strategic learners have four characteristics. First, they critically assess tasks, such as studying a textbook chapter, to identify features that may influence how they engage with the task and the degree of success they will have. Second, on the basis of their assessment, strategic students define short-term goals and probably overall goals for studying. Third, they know alternative cognitive tactics that provide options about tactics to apply to studying. Finally, strategic students make judgments about which tactic(s) or pattern(s) of tactics has the greatest utility for achieving the goals they choose to pursue (Hadwin & Winne, 1996; Winne, 1995, 1997; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Goals provide standards against which strategic students may monitor unfolding engagement with the task or the product(s) constructed as they engage with it. When strategic students monitor these events, they are self-regulating learning (SRL; Winne, 1995). SRL updates self-knowledge and perceptions about the task's changing states, thereby creating information that selfregulating learners can use to select, adapt, and even generate tactics (Butler & Winne, 1995; Hadwin & Winne, 1997; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). The element of intent to adapt cognitive engagement distinguishes SRL from just using tactics. An expert whose domain knowledge includes well-formed, automated tactics that