Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study

Aysun ATES AKDENIZ, (İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Endüstriyel Tasarım, Enstitü, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Gulname TURAN (İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Endüstriyel Tasarım Bölümü, Fakültesi Mimarlık, İstanbul, Türkiye)
A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi
1 0
Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 277 - 299 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522 İndeks Tarihi: 19-10-2022

Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study

Öz:
The value of self-regulated learning skills for academic achievement has been shown in different domains. However, self-regulated learning skills in design studio education have rarely been studied directly. This study aimed to explore differences in self-regulated learning strategies and motivational factors between high and low achieving industrial design students in an industrial design studio course. We applied a convergent mixed methods design with self-report questionnaires and interviews to gain a comprehensive understanding of students’ strategy use. The integrated analysis of quantitative data from 47 students and qualitative data from 16 students demonstrated differences between high and low achieving design students’ self-regulated learning skills concerning the use of metacognitive, motivational and behavioral strategies. Together with the expanded integration of data analysis, these findings indicate that self-regulated learning examinations should be undertaken with caution in design studio contexts.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Self- regulated learning in academic domains. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 393–407). New York: Routledge.
  • Araz, G., & Sungur, S. (2007). The interplay between cognitive and motivational variables in a problem-based learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 291– 297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2007.04.003
  • Arik, F., & Arik, I. A. (2016). Grounded Teori Metodolojisi ve Türkiye’de Grounded Teori çalışmaları [Grounded Theory Methodology and Grounded Theory research in Turkey].
  • Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 58, 285–309. Austerlitz, N., Shreeve, A., Blythman, M., Grove-White, A., Jones, B., Jones, C., Morgan, S. J., Orr, S., & Vaughan, S. (2008). Mind the gap: expectations, ambiguity and pedagogy within art and design higher education. In L. Drew (Ed.), The Student Experience in Art and Design Higher Education: Drivers for Change. JRA Publishing.
  • Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Chanuncey, A., Burkett, C., & Fike, A. (2009). MetaTutor: A MetaCognitive Tool for Enhancing Self-Regulated Learning. AAAI Fall Symposium: Cognitive and Metacognitive Educational Systems, 14–19.
  • Baldan Babayigit, B., & Guven, M. (2020). Self-regulated learning skills of undergraduate students and the role of higher education in promoting self-regulation. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 89, 47–70. https:// doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.89.3
  • Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2019). Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects. Design Studies, 65, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. destud.2019.10.003
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007).
  • Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.
  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi. org/10.1080/00098650903505415 Boud, D., & Falchikov, N.
  • (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi. org/10.1080/02602930600679050
  • Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED396659
  • Bull, K. (2015). Transformative practice as a learning approach for industrial designers. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design Pedagogy: Developments in Art and Design Education (pp. 113–133).
  • Carlson, S. E., Rees Lewis, D. G., Maliakal, L. v., Gerber, E. M., & Easterday, M. W. (2020). The design risks framework: Understanding metacognition for iteration. Design Studies, 70, 100961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud. 2020.100961
  • Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153– 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142- 694X(98)00032-5
  • Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., & Vernon, M. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 9–27. https://doi. org/10.7771/1541-5015.1253
  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Charmaz, K. (2021). The Genesis, Grounds, and Growth of Constructivist Grounded Theory. In J. M. Morse, B. J. Bowers, K. Charmaz, A. E. Clarke, J. Corbin, C. J. Porr, & P. N. Stern (Eds.), Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed., pp. 153–187). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315169170-13
  • Christiaans, H. (2002). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Design Studies, 23(4), 433–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0142-694X(01)00045-X
  • Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Education Research International, 2012, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/428639
  • Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Postareff, L. (2016). Understanding individual differences in approaches to learning across courses: A mixed method approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 69–80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.003
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Crolla, K., Hodgson, P., & Ho, A. (2019). ‘Peer critique’ in debate: A pedagogical tool for teaching architectural design studio. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.20429/ ijsotl.2019.130308
  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, 79–104. http://www. elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription. cws_home/621428/description#- description de la
  • Harpe, B., & Peterson, J. F. (2009). Through the learning and teaching looking glass: What do academics in art, design and architecture publish about most? Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 7(3), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1386/ adch.7.3.135_1
  • DiFrancesca, D., Nietfeld, J. L., & Cao, L. (2016). A comparison of high and low achieving students on self-regulated learning variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 228–236. https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2015.11.010
  • Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10648-008-9083-6
  • Eckerlein, N., Roth, A., Engelschalk, T., Steuer, G., Schmitz, B., & Dresel, M. (2019). The role of motivational regulation in exam preparation: Results from a standardized diary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(81). https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00081
  • Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. (2003). The sociocultural model in special education interventions: Apprenticing students in higher-order thinking. In L. H. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 450-467)). Guilford. Erdogan, T. (2011). Self-regulation and its effects on academic achievement. KHO Bilim Dergisi, 21(2), 127–145.
  • Erdogan, T. (2012). Probleme dayalı öğrenmenin erişiye ve öz düzenleme becerilerine etkisi [The effects of problem- based learning on achievement and self-regulated learning skills]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
  • Erdogan, T., & Senemoglu, N. (2016). Development and validation of a scale on self-regulation in learning (SSRL). SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1186/s40064-016-3367-y
  • Fadlelmula, F. K., Cakiroglu, E., & Sungur, S. (2015). Developing a structural model on the relationship among motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning strategies, and achievement in Mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1355–1375. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10763-013-9499-4
  • Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs - Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
  • Foerst, N. M., Klug, J., Jöstl, G., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2017). Knowledge vs. action: Discrepancies in university students’ knowledge about and self-reported use of self-regulated learning strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(Article 1288), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.01288
  • Galford, G., Hawkins, S., & Hertweck, M. (2015). Problem-based learning as a model for the interior design classroom: Bridging the skills divide between academia and practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1527
  • García-Pérez, D., Fraile, J., & Panadero, E. (2020). Learning strategies and self-regulation in context: how higher education students approach different courses, assessments, and challenges. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(2), 533–550. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10212-020-00488-z
  • Garner, S., & Evans, C. (2015). Fostering motivation in undergraduate design education. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design Pedagogy: Developments in Art and Design Education (pp. 69–81). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315576695-11
  • Gaythwaite, E. (2006). Metacognitive self-regulation, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and critical thinking as predictors of academic succe. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida]. Stars Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://stars.library.ucf. edu/etd/767
  • Geduld, B. (2016). Exploring differences between self-regulated learning strategies of high and low achievers in open distance learning. Africa Education Review, 13(1), 164–181. https://doi. org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1182739
  • Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio crit: Teacher-student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 24(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S089006041000020X
  • Greene, J. A. (2018). Self-Regulation in Education. Taylor & Francis Group. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18–29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.006
  • Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., Jackson, W. P., Caprino, A. M., Oswald, C., & McVea, M. (2015). Domain-specificity of self-regulated learning processing in science and history. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych. 2015.06.001
  • Greene, J. A., Freed, R., & Sawyer, R. K. (2019). Fostering creative performance in art and design education via self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 47(2), 127–149. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11251-018-9479-8
  • Hargrove, R. (2007). Creating creativity in the design studio: Assessing the impact of metacognitive skill development on creative abilities. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina State University, NC.
  • Hasirci, D., & Demirkan, H. (2007). Understanding the effects of cognition in creative decision making: A creativity model for enhancing the design studio process. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 259–271. https://doi. org/10.1080/10400410701397362
  • Haupt, G. (2015). Learning from experts: fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 483–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014- 9295-7
  • Hendriks, R. A., de Jong, P. G. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Reinders, M. E. J. (2020). Uncovering motivation and self-regulated learning skills in integrated medical MOOC learning: A mixed methods research protocol. BMJ Open, 10(10), 1–10. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038235
  • Iftikhar, N., Crowther, P., & Osborne, L. B. (2018). Exploring the effective dimensions of engaging students in contemporary architecture design studios in times of change. The IAFOR Asian Conference on Education. https://papers. iafor.org/submission43586/
  • Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., & Kester, L. (2019). Self-regulated learning partially mediates the effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28(September 2018), 100292. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100292
  • Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2020). A mixed method approach to studying self-regulated learning in MOOCs: combining trace data with interviews. Frontline Learning Research, 8(2), 35–64. https:// doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i2.539
  • Karabenick, S. A., & Gonida, E. N. (2018). Academic help seeking as a self-regulated learning strategy: Current issues, future directions. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed., pp. 421–433).
  • Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1988). Help seeking and the need for academic assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 406– 408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.80.3.406
  • Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(4), 709–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10798-019-09521-9
  • Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020). The role of metacognition in the first-year design lab. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3471–3494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020- 09848-4
  • Khan, Y. M., Shah, M. H., & Sahibzada, H. E. (2020). Impact of self-regulated learning behavior on the academic achievement of university students. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 117–130.
  • Kim, E. J., & Kim, K. M. (2015). Cognitive styles in design problem solving: Insights from network-based cognitive maps. Design Studies, 40, 1–38. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.05.002
  • Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 101–113. https://doi. org/10.1080/00220970209599501
  • Kjesrud, R. D. (2021). Studio-based learning pedagogy and practices. In R. D. Kjesrud, P. Hemsley, S. Jensen, & E. Winningham (Eds.), Learning Enhanced: Studio Practices for Engaged Inclusivity (pp. 1–35). Western Libraries CEDAR. https://cedar.wwu.edu/learning_ enhanced/19
  • Kryshko, O., Fleischer, J., Waldeyer, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2020). Do motivational regulation strategies contribute to university students’ academic success? Learning and Individual Differences, 82(November 2019), 101912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2020.101912
  • Kuhn, S. (2001). Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4– 5), 349–352.
  • Kurt, M., & Kurt, S. (2017). Improving Design Understandings and Skills through Enhanced Metacognition: Reflective Design Journals. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 36(2), 226–238. https://doi. org/10.1111/jade.12094
  • Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. In B. Lawson (Ed.), Angewandte Chemie International Edition (4th ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.
  • Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
  • Lee, T.-H., Shen, P.-D., & Tsai, C.- W. (2010). Enhance low-achieving students’ learning involvement in Taiwan’s higher education: An approach via e-learning with problem-based learning and self-regulated learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(5), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356 2517.2010.506999
  • Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (1998). Self-regulation behaviors in underprepared (developmental) and regular admission college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0956
  • Loeffler, S. N., Bohner, A., Stumpp, J., Limberger, M. F., & Gidion, G. (2019). Investigating and fostering self-regulated learning in higher education using interactive ambulatory assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 71(February), 43–57. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.006
  • Masatlıoğlu, C. S. E., & Takkeci, M. S. (2016). Self-constructive learning in preliminary design studio. Journal of Teaching and Education, 05(02), 95–105.
  • Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D.H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 25–44). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Moffatt, S., White, M., Mackintosh, J., & Howel, D. (2006). Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - What happens when mixed method findings conflict?. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 1–10. https://doi. org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-28
  • Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). An expert performance approach to the study of individual differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(5), 597–609. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.018
  • Newman, R. S. (2008). The motivational role of adaptive help seeking in self-regulated learning. In Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. (pp. 315– 337). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Newstetter, W. C., Eastman, C. M., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Introduction: Bringing design knowing and learning together. In W. C. Newstetter, C. M. Eastman, & W. M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp. 1–11). Elsevier Science. http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ B9780080438689500012
  • Nilson, L. B. (2013). Creating Self-Regulated Learners - Strategies to Strengthen Students’ Self-Awareness and Learning Skills. Stylus Publishing, LLC. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ (Online), 341(7783), 1147–1150. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
  • Oluwatayo, A. A., Ezema, I. C., Opoko, A. P., & Uwakonye, O. (2015). Motivation and self-regulated learning in design education. Iceri2015: 8th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 375–380.
  • Orlandi, A. E. C. (2010). Experimental experience in design education as a resource for innovative thinking: The case of Bruno Munari. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5039–5044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2010.03.817
  • Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0142-694X(98)00029-5
  • Rieckmann, M. (2018). Learning to transform the world: key competencies in ESD. In A. Leicht, J. Heiss, & W. J. Byun (Eds.), Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development (pp. 39–59). UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000261445
  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  • Sakız, G. (2014). Özdüzenleme - Öğrenmeden Öğretime Özdüzenleme Davranışlarının Gelişimi, Stratejiler ve Öneriler. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. Schleicher, A. (2018). Social and Emotional Skills. OECD Edu Skills, 33. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/ UPDATED Social and Emotional Skills - Well-being, connectedness and success. pdf (website).pdf
  • Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2–9. https://doi. org/10.1080/10464883.1984.10758345
  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers. http://books.google.com/ books?id=HfSJAAAACAAJ&printsec= frontcover Schunk, Dale H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Sebesta, A. J., & Speth, E. B. (2017). How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16- 09-0269
  • Seferoglu, S., & Akbiyik, C. (2006). Teaching Critical Thinking. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 193–200. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/ pub/hunefd/102380
  • Shreeve, A. (2015). Signature pedagogies in design. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design Pedagogy: Developments in Art and Design Education (pp. 83–92).
  • Shreeve, A. (2011). The way we were? Signature pedagogies under threat. In E. Bohemia, B. B. de Mozota, & L. Collina (Eds.), CUMULUS // DRS SIG on Design Pedagogy 1st International Symposium for Design Education Researchers (pp. 112–125). Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
  • Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201. https://doi. org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8
  • Smith, K. H. (2005). Problem-based learning in architecture and medicine: Comparing pedagogical models in beginning professional education. International Conference on the Beginning Design Student.
  • Smith, K. H. (2010). Curiosity and pedagogy: a mixed-methods study of student experiences in the design studio. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3407362).
  • Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691615569000
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 273–285). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1), 6–26. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00063-2
  • Sungur, S., & Yerdelen, S. (2011). Examination of the self-regulated learning processes for low and high achievers in Biology. The New Educational Review, 24(2), 207–215.
  • Tas, Y., & Sungur, S. (2012). The effect of problem-based learning on self-regulated learning: A review of literature. Croatian Journal of Education, 14(3), 533–560.
  • Thompson, J. (2020). Flipping the script: Foregrounding the architecture student. Charrette, 6(1), 1–8.
  • Tobón, J., Tellez, F., & Alzate, O. (2021). Metacognition in the Wild: Metacognitive Studies in Design Education. May 2020. https://doi. org/10.21606/learnxdesign.2019.09128
  • Tovey, M. (2015). Designerly thinking and creativity. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design Pedagogy: Developments in Art and Design Education (pp. 51–66).
  • Tudor, R. (2008). The pedagogy of creativity: Understanding higher order capability development in design and arts education. Proceedings of the 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education, 4, 1–19. http://www. guni-rmies.net
  • Uluoglu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142- 694X(99)00002-2
  • van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2020). Adults’ self-regulatory behaviour profiles in blended learning environments and their implications for design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(3), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10758-017-9351-y
  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2017). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In P. A. Alexander & R. E. Mayer (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2nd. Ed., pp. 197–219). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203839089.ch10
  • Vosniadou, S. (2020). Bridging secondary and higher education - The importance of self-regulated learning. European Review, 28(S1), 94–103. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1062798720000939
  • Voûte, E., Stappers, P. J., Giaccardi, E., Mooij, S., & van Boeijen, A. (2020). Innovating a large design education program at a University of Technology. She Ji, 6(1), 50–66. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.001
  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 551– 572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361- 476X(02)00006-1
  • World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the fourth industrial revolution. In World Economic Forum Reports. www.weforum.org Yorgancioglu, D. (2020). Critical reflections on the surface, pedagogical and epistemological features of the design studio under the “New Normal” conditions. Journal of Design Studio, 2(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.46474/ jds.744577
  • Yorgancioglu, D., & Tunalı, S. (2020). Changing pedagogic identities of tutors and students in the design studio: Case study of desk and peer critiques. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 19(1), 19–32. https://doi. org/10.1386/adch_00011_1
  • Zairul, M. (2018). Introducing studio oriented learning environment (sole) in upm, serdang: accessing student- centered learning. International Journal of Architectural Research, 12(1), 241–251.
  • Zairul, M. (2020). A thematic review on student-centred learning in the studio education. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(2), 504–511.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 1–25). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4612-3618-4_1
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation - A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press Inc. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip4102_2
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831207312909
  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2009). Motives to self-regulate learning: A social- cognitive account. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Educational Psychology Handbook Series. Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 247–264).
  • Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628. https://doi. org/10.3102/00028312023004614
  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex,and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. http://psycnet. apa.org/fulltext/1990-21082-001. html
  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulated learning: Where motivation and metacognition intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 1–43). New York: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203876428
  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group.
APA AKDENIZ A, TURAN G (2022). Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. , 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
Chicago AKDENIZ Aysun ATES,TURAN Gulname Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. (2022): 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
MLA AKDENIZ Aysun ATES,TURAN Gulname Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. , 2022, ss.277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
AMA AKDENIZ A,TURAN G Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. . 2022; 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
Vancouver AKDENIZ A,TURAN G Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. . 2022; 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
IEEE AKDENIZ A,TURAN G "Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study." , ss.277 - 299, 2022. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
ISNAD AKDENIZ, Aysun ATES - TURAN, Gulname. "Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study". (2022), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
APA AKDENIZ A, TURAN G (2022). Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
Chicago AKDENIZ Aysun ATES,TURAN Gulname Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 19, no.2 (2022): 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
MLA AKDENIZ Aysun ATES,TURAN Gulname Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.19, no.2, 2022, ss.277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
AMA AKDENIZ A,TURAN G Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; 19(2): 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
Vancouver AKDENIZ A,TURAN G Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; 19(2): 277 - 299. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
IEEE AKDENIZ A,TURAN G "Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study." A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, ss.277 - 299, 2022. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
ISNAD AKDENIZ, Aysun ATES - TURAN, Gulname. "Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study". A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 19/2 (2022), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2022.44522
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 4:6

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları