Jossberger, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Van de Wiel, M. (2010, August). Monitoring: A strategy to detect imminent mistakes. In D. Sembill (Chair), Human Fallibility: The Ambiguity of Errors for Work and Learning. Symposium conducted at the EARLI Learning and Professional Development SIG Conference, Munich, Germany.The aim of this empirical study was to unravel generic self-regulated learning behaviours and to seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in workplace simulations. Eighteen students from upper secondary vocational education participated. Students were observed during a practical lesson and interviewed afterward to gain detailed insights into their behaviours, thoughts, and (inter)actions.  Information was collected on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and mistakes and why they interacted with peers or the teacher. Students self-regulated during task execution. Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the product students were working on. Teachers were consulted when students had doubts and needed confirmation or when they wanted more information. They consulted their peers when they wanted to get a faster answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help them out.NWO project number 411-05-20

Boshuizen, Els

Brand-Gruwel, Saskia

Jossberger, Helen

Van de Wiel, Margje

English

DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent Mistakes 
 
Helen Jossberger 1*, Saskia Brand-Gruwel 1, Henny Boshuizen 1, and Margje van de Wiel 2 
1 Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open University of the Netherlands 
2 Faculty of Psychology, Maastricht University 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Helen Jossberger,  
Open University of the Netherlands, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, 
P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands. T: +31 45 5762730; E: 
helen.jossberger@ou.nl 
 2 
Abstract 
The aim of this empirical study was to unravel generic self-regulated learning 
behaviours and to seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating 
in workplace simulations. Eighteen students from upper secondary vocational education 
participated. Students were observed during a practical lesson and interviewed afterward to 
gain detailed insights into their behaviours, thoughts, and (inter)actions.  Information was 
collected on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and mistakes and 
why they interacted with peers or the teacher. Students self-regulated during task execution. 
Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on 
the product students were working on. Teachers were consulted when students had doubts and 
needed confirmation or when they wanted more information. They consulted their peers when 
they wanted to get a faster answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help 
them out. 
 
Keywords: Self-regulated learning, vocational education 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
It seems a pedagogical necessity to develop employees that are qualified and adapted 
to the needs of the workplace (Achtenhagen & Oldenbürger, 1996). Vocational education 
should offer the possibility for students to develop both the competencies required for their 
future profession as well as the skills necessary for future learning (Achtenhagen & 
Oldenbürger, 1996; Biemans, Nieuwenhuis, Poell, et al., 2004). Research identified self-
regulated learning (SRL) as a key skill to keep on learning and to achieve high quality 
performance (e.g., Zimmerman, 2006). Self-regulated learners orientate, plan, monitor, adjust, 
assess, and evaluate their processes during task performance. Insight into one’s own learning 
process is essential to choose an appropriate learning path and to focus on performance 
aspects that need improvement (Kicken, Brand-Gruwel, & Van Merriënboer, 2008; Ericsson, 
2006). During task performance, monitoring is an essential activity as learners should be 
constantly aware of what they are doing by looking back at the plan and looking forward at 
the steps that still need to be performed to achieve the goal in mind. Monitoring can help to 
detect mistakes and deviations from the plan. When learners realize that things do not work 
out as planned, they need to adjust their approach. Students, who are aware of their mistakes, 
can learn from them and prevent them next time. By monitoring their progress, students can 
also figure out when they need to seek help. Knowing when, where and how to find help or 
necessary information is a self-regulated learning skill (Zimmerman, 2006). 
So far, little is known about the way students learn and what learning strategies they 
use in vocational education. The aim of this study is to unravel generic SRL behaviours and 
seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating. The central 
research question is: “What characterises good functioning students in vocational education 
and what kind of self-regulated learning strategies do they use to detect (imminent) mistakes? 
 
 
 4 
Method 
Participants. Eighteen students (9 females, 9 males) of the sectors Agriculture, 
Engineering & Technology, and Care & Welfare, participated. Students were in their first 
year of upper secondary vocational education and their mean age was 16,5 years (SD .86). 
Students were selected by their teachers and they could be characterised as good functioning 
students.  
Procedure. During a practical lesson, students were observed individually and audio-
recordings of their interactions were made. All actions and interactions were noted in an 
observation scheme. In an in-depth semi-structured interview the lesson was discussed on the 
basis of the observational notes and students were asked to explicate their behaviour and 
thoughts. Information on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and why 
they interacted with peers or the teacher was collected.  
Analysis. Data was analysed with a phenomenological approach to detect micro 
processes of self-regulated learning.  
 
Results and Discussion 
The observational data and the information gained from the interviews show that the 
students who participated in this study self-regulated their learning to some extent.  In 
general, students started straight away working on their practical task. Monitoring appeared to 
be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the products students 
were working on. As students concentrated and focussed their attention on the learning tasks, 
they were able to detect mistakes during the process. By going through the executed steps 
again, they were able to correct their own mistakes. The fact that students monitored carefully 
helped them to determine at what point during task performance they needed to seek help; 
they knew where and how to find the necessary information. Only if students had doubts and 
 5 
needed confirmation or when they wanted more information, they consulted the teacher. A 
peer was consulted when they wanted to get a fast answer and thought that this peer had 
enough knowledge to help them out.  
This study shows that good learners monitor their learning process and are able to 
detect mistakes; these insights can help to teach less skilful learners to monitor systematically.  
 
References 
Achtenhagen, F., & Oldenbürger, H.-A. (1996). Goals for further vocational education and 
training: The view of employees and the view of superiors. International Journal of 
Educational Research, 25, 387-401. 
Biemans, H., Nieuwenhuis, L., Poell, R., Mulder, M., & Wesselink, R. (2004). Competence-
based VET in the Netherlands: background and pitfalls. Journal of Vocational 
Education and Training, 56, 523-538. 
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the 
development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. 
Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert 
performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press. 
Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Scaffolding advice on 
task selection: A safe path toward self-directed learning in on-demand education. 
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 60, 223-239. 
Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-
regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, & R. 
R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance 
(pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press. 
 


Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent Mistakes

The aim of this empirical study was to unravel generic self-regulated learning behaviours and to seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in workplace simulations. Eighteen students from upper secondary vocational education participated. Students were observed during a practical lesson and interviewed afterward to gain detailed insights into their behaviours, thoughts, and (inter)actions. Information was collected on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and mistakes and why they interacted with peers or the teacher. Students self-regulated during task execution. Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the product students were working on. Teachers were consulted when students had doubts and needed confirmation or when they wanted more information. They consulted their peers when they wanted to get a faster answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help them out

Open University of the Netherlands Research Portal

Open Universiteit www.ou.nl Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent MistakesCitation for published version (APA):Jossberger, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., Boshuizen, E., & Van de Wiel, M. (2010). Monitoring: A Strategy to DetectImminent Mistakes.Document status and date:Published: 09/11/2010Document Version:Peer reviewed versionDocument license:CC BY-NC-NDPlease check the document version of this publication:• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences betweenthe submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for thefinal version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.Link to publicationGeneral rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:https://www.ou.nl/taverne-agreementTake down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:pure-support@ou.nlproviding details and we will investigate your claim.Downloaded from https://research.ou.nl/ on date: 08 Sep. 2023 1       Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent Mistakes  Helen Jossberger 1*, Saskia Brand-Gruwel 1, Henny Boshuizen 1, and Margje van de Wiel 2 1 Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open University of the Netherlands 2 Faculty of Psychology, Maastricht University           * Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Helen Jossberger,  Open University of the Netherlands, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands. T: +31 45 5762730; E: helen.jossberger@ou.nl  2 Abstract The aim of this empirical study was to unravel generic self-regulated learning behaviours and to seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in workplace simulations. Eighteen students from upper secondary vocational education participated. Students were observed during a practical lesson and interviewed afterward to gain detailed insights into their behaviours, thoughts, and (inter)actions.  Information was collected on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and mistakes and why they interacted with peers or the teacher. Students self-regulated during task execution. Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the product students were working on. Teachers were consulted when students had doubts and needed confirmation or when they wanted more information. They consulted their peers when they wanted to get a faster answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help them out.  Keywords: Self-regulated learning, vocational education            3 It seems a pedagogical necessity to develop employees that are qualified and adapted to the needs of the workplace (Achtenhagen & Oldenbürger, 1996). Vocational education should offer the possibility for students to develop both the competencies required for their future profession as well as the skills necessary for future learning (Achtenhagen & Oldenbürger, 1996; Biemans, Nieuwenhuis, Poell, et al., 2004). Research identified self-regulated learning (SRL) as a key skill to keep on learning and to achieve high quality performance (e.g., Zimmerman, 2006). Self-regulated learners orientate, plan, monitor, adjust, assess, and evaluate their processes during task performance. Insight into one’s own learning process is essential to choose an appropriate learning path and to focus on performance aspects that need improvement (Kicken, Brand-Gruwel, & Van Merriënboer, 2008; Ericsson, 2006). During task performance, monitoring is an essential activity as learners should be constantly aware of what they are doing by looking back at the plan and looking forward at the steps that still need to be performed to achieve the goal in mind. Monitoring can help to detect mistakes and deviations from the plan. When learners realize that things do not work out as planned, they need to adjust their approach. Students, who are aware of their mistakes, can learn from them and prevent them next time. By monitoring their progress, students can also figure out when they need to seek help. Knowing when, where and how to find help or necessary information is a self-regulated learning skill (Zimmerman, 2006). So far, little is known about the way students learn and what learning strategies they use in vocational education. The aim of this study is to unravel generic SRL behaviours and seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating. The central research question is: “What characterises good functioning students in vocational education and what kind of self-regulated learning strategies do they use to detect (imminent) mistakes?    4 Method Participants. Eighteen students (9 females, 9 males) of the sectors Agriculture, Engineering & Technology, and Care & Welfare, participated. Students were in their first year of upper secondary vocational education and their mean age was 16,5 years (SD .86). Students were selected by their teachers and they could be characterised as good functioning students.  Procedure. During a practical lesson, students were observed individually and audio-recordings of their interactions were made. All actions and interactions were noted in an observation scheme. In an in-depth semi-structured interview the lesson was discussed on the basis of the observational notes and students were asked to explicate their behaviour and thoughts. Information on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and why they interacted with peers or the teacher was collected.  Analysis. Data was analysed with a phenomenological approach to detect micro processes of self-regulated learning.   Results and Discussion The observational data and the information gained from the interviews show that the students who participated in this study self-regulated their learning to some extent.  In general, students started straight away working on their practical task. Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the products students were working on. As students concentrated and focussed their attention on the learning tasks, they were able to detect mistakes during the process. By going through the executed steps again, they were able to correct their own mistakes. The fact that students monitored carefully helped them to determine at what point during task performance they needed to seek help; they knew where and how to find the necessary information. Only if students had doubts and  5 needed confirmation or when they wanted more information, they consulted the teacher. A peer was consulted when they wanted to get a fast answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help them out.  This study shows that good learners monitor their learning process and are able to detect mistakes; these insights can help to teach less skilful learners to monitor systematically.   References Achtenhagen, F., & Oldenbürger, H.-A. (1996). Goals for further vocational education and training: The view of employees and the view of superiors. International Journal of Educational Research, 25, 387-401. Biemans, H., Nieuwenhuis, L., Poell, R., Mulder, M., & Wesselink, R. (2004). Competence-based VET in the Netherlands: background and pitfalls. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 56, 523-538. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Scaffolding advice on task selection: A safe path toward self-directed learning in on-demand education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 60, 223-239. Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press.  

Open Universiteit www.ou.nl Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent MistakesCitation for published version (APA):Jossberger, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., Boshuizen, E., & Van de Wiel, M. (2010). Monitoring: A Strategy to DetectImminent Mistakes.Document status and date:Published: 09/11/2010Document Version:Peer reviewed versionDocument license:CC BY-NC-NDPlease check the document version of this publication:• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences betweenthe submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for thefinal version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.Link to publicationGeneral rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:https://www.ou.nl/taverne-agreementTake down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:pure-support@ou.nlproviding details and we will investigate your claim.Downloaded from https://research.ou.nl/ on date: 16 Jul. 2023 1       Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent Mistakes  Helen Jossberger 1*, Saskia Brand-Gruwel 1, Henny Boshuizen 1, and Margje van de Wiel 2 1 Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open University of the Netherlands 2 Faculty of Psychology, Maastricht University           * Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Helen Jossberger,  Open University of the Netherlands, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands. T: +31 45 5762730; E: helen.jossberger@ou.nl  2 Abstract The aim of this empirical study was to unravel generic self-regulated learning behaviours and to seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in workplace simulations. Eighteen students from upper secondary vocational education participated. Students were observed during a practical lesson and interviewed afterward to gain detailed insights into their behaviours, thoughts, and (inter)actions.  Information was collected on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and mistakes and why they interacted with peers or the teacher. Students self-regulated during task execution. Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the product students were working on. Teachers were consulted when students had doubts and needed confirmation or when they wanted more information. They consulted their peers when they wanted to get a faster answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help them out.  Keywords: Self-regulated learning, vocational education            3 It seems a pedagogical necessity to develop employees that are qualified and adapted to the needs of the workplace (Achtenhagen & Oldenbürger, 1996). Vocational education should offer the possibility for students to develop both the competencies required for their future profession as well as the skills necessary for future learning (Achtenhagen & Oldenbürger, 1996; Biemans, Nieuwenhuis, Poell, et al., 2004). Research identified self-regulated learning (SRL) as a key skill to keep on learning and to achieve high quality performance (e.g., Zimmerman, 2006). Self-regulated learners orientate, plan, monitor, adjust, assess, and evaluate their processes during task performance. Insight into one’s own learning process is essential to choose an appropriate learning path and to focus on performance aspects that need improvement (Kicken, Brand-Gruwel, & Van Merriënboer, 2008; Ericsson, 2006). During task performance, monitoring is an essential activity as learners should be constantly aware of what they are doing by looking back at the plan and looking forward at the steps that still need to be performed to achieve the goal in mind. Monitoring can help to detect mistakes and deviations from the plan. When learners realize that things do not work out as planned, they need to adjust their approach. Students, who are aware of their mistakes, can learn from them and prevent them next time. By monitoring their progress, students can also figure out when they need to seek help. Knowing when, where and how to find help or necessary information is a self-regulated learning skill (Zimmerman, 2006). So far, little is known about the way students learn and what learning strategies they use in vocational education. The aim of this study is to unravel generic SRL behaviours and seek to investigate micro processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating. The central research question is: “What characterises good functioning students in vocational education and what kind of self-regulated learning strategies do they use to detect (imminent) mistakes?    4 Method Participants. Eighteen students (9 females, 9 males) of the sectors Agriculture, Engineering & Technology, and Care & Welfare, participated. Students were in their first year of upper secondary vocational education and their mean age was 16,5 years (SD .86). Students were selected by their teachers and they could be characterised as good functioning students.  Procedure. During a practical lesson, students were observed individually and audio-recordings of their interactions were made. All actions and interactions were noted in an observation scheme. In an in-depth semi-structured interview the lesson was discussed on the basis of the observational notes and students were asked to explicate their behaviour and thoughts. Information on the way they executed a task, how they dealt with problems and why they interacted with peers or the teacher was collected.  Analysis. Data was analysed with a phenomenological approach to detect micro processes of self-regulated learning.   Results and Discussion The observational data and the information gained from the interviews show that the students who participated in this study self-regulated their learning to some extent.  In general, students started straight away working on their practical task. Monitoring appeared to be an activity that was regularly executed by keeping a close eye on the products students were working on. As students concentrated and focussed their attention on the learning tasks, they were able to detect mistakes during the process. By going through the executed steps again, they were able to correct their own mistakes. The fact that students monitored carefully helped them to determine at what point during task performance they needed to seek help; they knew where and how to find the necessary information. Only if students had doubts and  5 needed confirmation or when they wanted more information, they consulted the teacher. A peer was consulted when they wanted to get a fast answer and thought that this peer had enough knowledge to help them out.  This study shows that good learners monitor their learning process and are able to detect mistakes; these insights can help to teach less skilful learners to monitor systematically.   References Achtenhagen, F., & Oldenbürger, H.-A. (1996). Goals for further vocational education and training: The view of employees and the view of superiors. International Journal of Educational Research, 25, 387-401. Biemans, H., Nieuwenhuis, L., Poell, R., Mulder, M., & Wesselink, R. (2004). Competence-based VET in the Netherlands: background and pitfalls. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 56, 523-538. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Scaffolding advice on task selection: A safe path toward self-directed learning in on-demand education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 60, 223-239. Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press.  

http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/2952/1/HelenJossberger%20et%20al._Sig14_Proposal_2010.pdf

Monitoring: A Strategy to Detect Imminent Mistakes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

Open University of the Netherlands Research Portal

Open University of the Netherlands Research Portal