Cognitive strategy use was highest in social studies and lowest in mathematics, and females reported more use than males¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1998 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Cognitive strategy use showed main effects of subject area and gender, with no subject area by gender interaction. → Wolters 1998 q2 i? Students reported greater cognitive strategy use in social studies than in mathematics or English, and greater use in English than in mathematics. → Wolters 1998 (2) q2 i? Females reported using cognitive strategies more often than males within each of the three subject areas. → Wolters 1998 (3)

Evidence¶

Wolters 1998¶

Wolters, C.A. & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science 26: 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003035929216

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Repeated measures ANOVA in the 545-student survey found main effects of subject area and gender on cognitive strategy use; the subject area-by-gender interaction did not reach significance (F(2,542) = 0.13, p /n3e 0.10).

"For students’ use of cognitive strategies there was a main effect of subject area, F(2,542) = 17.96, p /n3c 0.001, and a main effect of gender, F(1,543) = 5.13, p /n3c 0.05."

Wolters 1998 (2)¶

Wolters, C.A. & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science 26: 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003035929216

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Scheffe post hoc tests pooled across genders in the same survey showed "students reported greater cognitive strategy use in social studies" than in mathematics or English, consistent with the authors' hypotheses.

"on average, students reported greater cognitive strategy use in social studies than in mathematics ( p /n3c 0.05), or English (p /n3c 0.05)"

Wolters 1998 (3)¶

Wolters, C.A. & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science 26: 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003035929216

q2 · i? · associational · r2

In the regression analyses predicting cognitive strategy use, the gender coefficient was significant but "uniquely explained less than 1% of the variance in strategy use" in each subject after accounting for motivational variables.

"Generally, females reported using cognitive strategies more often than males within each of the three subject areas (see Table 3)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Test anxiety was highest in social studies and lowest in English, with the pattern differing by gender — related
• Regulatory strategy use and classroom grades showed no subject-area differences, though females received higher grades than males — related
• Task value was higher for mathematics than for English and social studies for both genders, with gender differences only in the English–social studies comparison — related
• Graduate attribute scores vary by gender and by subject, with language-based subjects scoring well on communication — related
• The relations among motivational, strategy use, and performance constructs were similar across mathematics, English, and social studies — related
• Task value predicted cognitive and regulatory strategy use but not classroom grades, whereas self-efficacy predicted grades in all three subjects — related
• Chatbot interaction depth varied by condition and subject: longer entries in physics than English and shorter entries in the cognitive learning condition than the utility value condition — related
• Mathematics shows the lowest student ratings of situational engagement among school subjects — related