Use a multi-study mixed method design combining process data (eye tracking), concurrent think-aloud, and retrospective interviews to study SRL adaptation¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 qualitative), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The article's methodological approach is a "multi-study, mixed method design" that pairs quantitative process data with verbal report data. Study 1 collected "eye tracking patterns, study times, and metacognitive ratings" to capture behavioral processing, and Study 2 added "concurrent think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews" to explain why discrepancies were noticed or not and how they were resolved. This combination allows behavioral adaptation to be measured and then interpreted through learners' own accounts.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Access to eye tracking equipment for behavioral processing data
• Capacity to collect and analyze both concurrent and retrospective verbal reports

Constraints¶

• Reported with university students learning science content with conceptual discrepancies

Target Learners¶

• university students

Target Learning Goals¶

• understanding self-regulated learning processes during encounters with discrepant information

Claims¶

• Whether conceptual discrepancies are noticed (or not) and how they are resolved can be traced through concurrent think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Use multi-method, multi-timing measurement and subscale-level correlational analysis when evaluating metacognition
• Design think-aloud tasks with training (instruction, demonstration, practice) and marker-based prompting to enhance methodological rigour

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Gregory Trevors, Reza Feyzi-Behnagh, Roger Azevedo, François Bouchet. Self-Regulated Learning Processes Vary as a Function of Epistemic Beliefs and Contexts: Mixed Method Evidence from Eye Tracking and Concurrent and Retrospective Reports. Learning and Instruction, 2016, 42, pp.31-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.11.003