Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Regulatory focus and Theory of Intelligence in the order of learning

학습순서 결정에서 지능관점과 조절초점의 영향

  • Received : 2020.12.10
  • Accepted : 2020.12.10
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Psychological properties of learners have influence on learning behaviors in various ways. The purpose of this study was to examine how the goal orientation of learners affected the learning time distribution method. Regulatory focus and theories of intelligence were measured and manipulated in order to differentiate participants' goal-oriented state. Two variables are known to be key variables influencing learner's goal orientation, inducing the approach-avoidance strategy and mastery-performance oriented attitude. In the experiment, the control focus was divided into two groups based on the inclination test score (regulatory Focus Questionnaire, RFQ), and TOI(theory of intelligence) was temporally induced through manipulation to confirm the interaction between the two variables. Participants were able to determine the order of learning freely by learning a set of Spanish-Korean word pairs and then selecting the items they would like to re-learn. Word pairs consisted of difficult or easy items, and learners could learn the same word many times if they wanted to. In the results, promotion-incremental group showed allocating difficult word-pairs in early time.

학습 상황에서 개인의 내적 특성은 다양한 방식으로 학습행동에 영향을 준다. 특히 '동기'는 학습자의 목표 설정하 및 전략 선택에 영향을 주는 핵심적인 요소이다. 본 연구는 학습자의 목표지향이 학습 시간 분배 방식에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가를 확인하였다. 참가자들의 목표지향 상태를 달리하기 위하여 관련 변인인 조절초점(regulatory focus)과 지능관점(theories of intelligence)을 측정 및 조작하여 집단을 구분하였다. 두 변인은 각각 접근-회피전략(조절초점에 따른 동기 성향)과 숙달-수행지향적 태도(지능관점에 따른 동기)를 유발하며 학습자의 목표지향(goal orientation) 형성에 영향을 주는 핵심적인 변인으로 알려져 왔다. 실험에서 조절초점은 성향검사점수를 기준으로 두 집단으로 구분하였으며, 조작을 통해 지능관점의 차이를 일시적으로 유발하여 두 변인 간의 상호작용을 확인하였다. 참가자들은 일련의 스페인어-한국어 단어 쌍을 학습한 후 재학습하고 싶은 항목을 선택하여 자유롭게 학습순서를 결정할 수 있었다. 단어 쌍은 어렵거나 쉬운 항목들로 구성되어 있었으며, 학습자들은 원한다면 같은 단어를 여러 번 학습할 수 있었다. 결과에서, 조절초점과 지능관점에 따라 학습 초반에 어려운 단어를 선택하는 비율의 상호작용 효과가 나타났다. 즉, 향상초점-증진조건의 참가자들은 향상초점-불변조건의 참가자들에 비해 학습 초반에 어려운 단어를 배치하는 비율이 높았으며, 예방초점인 학습자들은 지능관점의 영향을 받지 않았다. 이러한 결과는 학습자의 목표지향에 따라 학습 전략을 세우는 방식이 다를 수 있음을 보여준다.

Keywords

References

  1. Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasures and "we" avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1086/321946
  2. Arbona, C. (2000). The development of academic achievement in school aged children: Precursors to career development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 270-309). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  3. Aronson, J., & Fried, C. (1998). Reducing sterotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African Americans: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Unpublished manu script, University of Texas.
  4. Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second-language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96(1), 124.-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033475
  5. Bandura, M., & Dweck, C. S. (1981). Children's theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.
  6. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation :Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706-722 https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.5.706
  7. Bergen, R. S. (1991). Beliefs about intelligence and achievement-related behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
  8. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of marketing research, 192-203.
  9. Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from" feeling right." Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(3), 388-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
  10. Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.19
  11. Cho, H. I.,, Oh, H. S. (2009). The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Self-Regulated Learning: Perfectionism as a Mediator. The Korean Journal of Youth Study, 16(9), 205-221.
  12. Cho, H. I.,, Oh, H. S. (2011). The Effects of Regulatory Focus and Cognitive Expectancy on Career Exploration Activities. The Korean Journal of Youth Study, 18(2), 123-143.
  13. Cull, W. L., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners?. Memory & Cognition, 22(2), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208896
  14. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press.
  16. Dunlosky, J., & Connor, L. T. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & cognition, 25(5), 691-700. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211311
  17. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 249-276.
  18. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32(5), 779-788. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195868
  19. Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck's model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.007
  20. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
  21. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
  22. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological inquiry, 6(4), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
  23. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256-273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
  24. Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective. Big theories revisited, 4, 165-198.
  25. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 218-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
  26. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H, A., & Gable, A. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediation analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 549-563. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.549
  27. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(3), 501-519. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501
  28. Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2001). Cross-Cultural Response to Failure: Considering Outcome Attributions with Different Goals. Student Motivation, 203-219.
  29. Heo, Y. S., Sohn, W. S. (2013). A Person-Centered Analysis of Regulatory Focus for Korean 5-6th graders: Achievement Emotions and Subjective Well-Being. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 27(1), 201-220.
  30. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
  31. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
  32. Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 327-345. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058003327
  33. Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 77(3), 588-599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
  34. Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). How current feedback and chronic effectiveness influence motivation: Everything to gain versus everything to lose. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200007/08)30:4<583::AID-EJSP9>3.0.CO;2-S
  35. Kim, S., Pyo, D. M., Lee, J., Lee, J., Min, J., Shin, K., Kim., K. (2015). A Study of The Validity of Korean Versions of Regulatory Focus Scale. The Korean Journal of Social Psychology, 29(3), 85-110.
  36. Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 609-622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.609
  37. Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2006, November). Self-testing: A metacognitive disconnect between memory monitoring and study choice. In Poster presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston, TX.
  38. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
  39. Lee, H. J. (2011). Effects of regulatory goal type and goal relations on college students' self-regulated Learning in multiple goal setting. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 25(1), 1-32.
  40. Leonardelli, G. J., Lakin, J. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2007). A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 1002-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.021
  41. Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived competence: Impact on students' achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10035
  42. Mazzoni, G., & Cornoldi, C. (1993). Strategies in study time allocation: Why is study time sometimes not effective?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.122.1.47
  43. Mazzoni, G., Cornoldi, C., & Marchitelli, G. (1990). Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation?. Memory & Cognition, 18(2), 196-204. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197095
  44. Meece, J. M., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514
  45. Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.131.3.349
  46. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 530-542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530
  47. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of memory and language, 52(4), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001
  48. Miele, D. B., & Molden, D. C. (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 535-557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019745
  49. Miele, D. B., Finn, B., & Molden, D. C. (2011). Does easily learned mean easily remembered? It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 320-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397954
  50. Miele, D. B., Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2013). Children's naive theories of intelligence influence their metacognitive judgments. Child development, 84(6), 1879-1886. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12101
  51. Munro, T. R. (1970). The relative radiosensitivity of the nucleus and cytoplasm of Chinese hamster fibroblasts. Radiation research, 42(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.2307/3572962
  52. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Gamma is a Measure of the Accuracy of Predicting Performance on One Item Relative to Another Item, not of the Absolute Performance on an Individual Item Comments on Schraw (1995). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(3), 257-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199606)10:3<257::AID-ACP400>3.0.CO;2-9
  53. Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5(4), 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00502.x
  54. Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the" labor-in-vain effect." Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 676-686. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.14.4.676
  55. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological review, 91(3), 328-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
  56. Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 683-692. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.77.6.683
  57. Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 599-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312960
  58. Park., B. G.,, Lee, J. U. (2005). Development and validation of a 2×2 achievement goal orientation scale.. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(1), 327-352.
  59. Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1
  60. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. Academic Press.
  61. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Quantitative and qualitative perspectives on student motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
  62. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory. Research, and Applications, Second Edition, Merrill Prentice Hall, Columbus, Ohio.
  63. Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001). Person theories and attention allocation: preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(6), 876-893. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.876
  64. Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4), 313-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805
  65. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
  66. Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: how abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.36
  67. Senko, C., & Harackiewicz. J. M. (2002). Performance goals: The moderating role of context, achievement orientation, and feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 603-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00503-6
  68. Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2008). Research on the allocation of study time: Key studies from 1890 to the present (and beyond). A handbook of memory and metamemory, 333-351.
  69. Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2009). Simultaneous decisions at study: Time allocation, ordering, and spacing. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9049-1
  70. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.1.204
  71. Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1990). Beliefs and achievement: A study of Black, White, and Hispanic children. Child development, 508-523.
  72. Stigler, J. W., & Stevenson, H. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. Simon and Schuster
  73. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.25.4.1024
  74. Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0102_4
  75. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
  76. Zacks, R. T. (1969). Invariance of total learning time under different conditions of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(3), 441-447. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028369
  77. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.241