Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-03
A questionnaire on mathematics learning strategies (CEAMA): measurement and properties of an adaptation into Spanish / Cuestionario de Estrategias de Aprendizaje para las Matemáticas (CEAMA): medida y propiedades de una adaptación en lengua castellana
Learning strategies are an essential tool to enable the autonomous and active learning of mathematics and it is therefore necessary to identify these strategies correctly. The objective of this research is to analyse the factorial structure of the Spanish version of a questionnaire that measures the use of these strategies in the subject of mathematics (Cuestionario de Estrategias de Aprendizaje para las Matemáticas [CEAMA]). We adapt a questionnaire based on the MSLQ (Motivated Strategy for Learning Questionnaire), since it is focused on the context of mathematics learning. The study has been conducted in different schools located in the Basque Country and collects data from 631 students of the second, third and fourth years of compulsory secondary education (ESO). The results show a hepta-scale structure compared to the six-scale structure proposed by the original English version. The difference is detected in the division of metacognitive strategies into two factors: planning and monitoring/regulation. This finding improves data on metacognition in mathematics teaching and learning, making it richer and more exhaustive. The suitability of certain items is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhmedW.van der WerfG.KuyperH.MinnaertA. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 150–161. doi:10.1037/a0030160
2.
BeltránJ. (1993). Procesos, estrategias y técnicas de aprendizaje. Madrid: Síntesis.
3.
BentlerP. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825–829. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024
4.
BergerJ.KarabenickS. A. (2011). Motivation and student’s use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21, 416–428. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002
5.
BergerJ. L. (2012). Uncovering vocational students’ multiple goal profiles in the learning of professional mathematics: Differences in learning strategies, motivational beliefs and cognitive abilities. Educational Psychology, 32, 405–425. doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.674663
6.
BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic. doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50042-1
7.
BrislinR. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In LouverW.BerryJ. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
BroadbentJ.PoonW. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
9.
ChanK. W.WongK. Y. A.LoS. C. E. (2012). Relational analysis of intrinsic motivation, achievement goals, learning strategies and academic achievement for Hong Kong secondary students. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21, 230–243. Retrieved fromhttp://repository.lib.ied.edu.hk/jspui/handle/2260.2/12810
10.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modelling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
11.
ChiuM. M.Wing-YinB.McBride-ChangC. (2007). Universals and specifics in learning strategies: Explaining adolescent mathematics, science, and reading achievement across 34 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 344–365. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.007
12.
DignathC.BuettnerG.LangfeldtH. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003
13.
DisethÅ.KobbeltvedtT. (2010). A mediation analysis of achievement motives, goals, learning strategies, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 671–687. doi:10.1348/000709910x492432
14.
EsnaolaI.RodríguezA.GoñiE. (2011). Psychometric Properties of AF5 Self-Concept Questionnaire. Anales de Psicología, 27, 109–117.
15.
GarciaT.PintrichP. R. (1996). Assessing students’ motivation and learning strategies in the classroom context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. In BirenbaumM.DochyF. (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 319–339). The Netherlands: Springer.
16.
Gasco-TxabarriJ. (2016). The use of strategies for the learning of mathematics in Compulsory Secondary Education. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 34, 487–502. doi:10.6018/rie.34.2.222901
17.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
18.
KramarskiB.MevarechZ. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310. doi:10.3102/00028312040001281
19.
LiuO. L. (2009). Evaluation of a learning strategies scale for middle school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 312–322. doi:10.1177/0734282908327935
20.
MarklandD. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 851–858. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.023
21.
MilesJ.ShevlinM. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 869–874. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.022
22.
MurayamaK.PekrunR.LichtenfeldS.vom HofeR. (2013). Predicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child development, 84, 1475–1490. doi:10.1111/cdev.12036
23.
PintrichP. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic. doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3
24.
PintrichP. R.DeGrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
25.
PintrichP. R.SmithD. A. F.GarciaT.McKeachieW. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
26.
SteigerJ. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893–898. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
27.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
28.
ThiessenV.BlasiusJ. (2008). Mathematics achievement and mathematics learning strategies: Cognitive competencies and construct differentiation. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 362–371. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2008.12.002
29.
WeinsteinC. E.MayerR. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3ª ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
30.
WernkeS.WagenerU.AnschuetzA.MoschnerB. (2011). Assessing cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies in school children: Construct validity and arising questions. International Journal of Research and Review, 6, 19–38. Retrieved fromhttp://journalofresearchandreview.books.officelive.com/default.aspx
