IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

The Effects of Learning Stations on Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
Students’ Achievement and Self-Regulated Learning
Reem Alsaadi
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia
Adam Al Sultan
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

51

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of learning station strategies on developing
academic achievement and self-regulated learning among middle school students of low
socioeconomic status. The sample group consisted of 68 female Saudi students. We applied aquasi-experimental design with an experimental and control group and a pretest and posttest.
We examined the correlation between academic achievement and self-regulated learning. The
data collection instruments included an academic achievement test and self-regulated learningquestionnaire. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between the meanscores of both instruments in favor of the experimental group. Additionally, there was apositive relationship between development of academic achievement and self-regulated
learning among the students for the experimental group. The study’s findings suggest that thelearning stations created a dynamic classroom, which prompted students to engage in selfregulatory behaviors and develop their knowledge and understanding.
Keywords: learning stations, achievement, self-regulated learning, low socioeconomic status52

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Considering the importance of sustainable education for the future of all students, including
students who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, investigating
instructional strategies that may support and amplify their learning experiences becomes anecessary intervention to address their educational needs. Additionally, students of low
socioeconomic status are often identified as students with low educational achievement andfrom low-income households who are at risk of inadequate academic preparation and weak
parental or family support (Dietrichson et al., 2017; Rubin et al., 2014). As such, strengthening
the focus on teaching quality and students’ learning abilities becomes central to providing
students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds with appropriate and sustainableeducation for their future.
Previous research has established that students of low socioeconomic status, on average, havelower academic achievement levels than students of high socioeconomic status (e.g., Acar,
2019; Hernstein & Murray, 1994; Hertert & Teague, 2003). Although it is unrealistic to believethat school-based strategies alone can eliminate disparities in academic achievement between
socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students, teachers with effective
instructional strategies can help narrow the achievement gap (Reardon, 2013). Many studies
have found that the role of teachers is a key factor in making a significant difference in students’achievement. For example, Haycock (1998) stressed that teachers have a more powerful
influence on students’ achievement than students’ socioeconomic status and parent education.
Similarly, Marzano et al. (2001) indicated that even in low-performing schools, teachers could
affect achievement in students and help them attain their fullest capacities. Collectively,
students may face socioeconomic and academic challenges during their educational journey,
but effective teaching strategies can address their achievement needs (Wronowski, 2017).
Furthermore, existing research recognizes the critical role that self-regulated learning plays instudents’ academic achievement. Drawn from social cognitive theory, self-regulated learning
mainly involves cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and resource-management
strategies, which are known within self-regulation literature to support students’ learning andacademic achievement (e.g., Graham & Harris, 2009; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).
Additionally, adept self-regulated learning is correlated with satisfactory levels ofachievement, and high-performing students implement self-regulated learning more often andmore successfully than their lower-performing peers (Dent & Koenka, 2016).
However, a crucial question is what instructional strategies should be targeted by teachers andencouraged by educational decision makers that have the potential to narrow the achievement
gap and foster self-regulated learning among students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds. Nevertheless, adopting an instructional strategy to address academic
achievement is a decisive and challenging decision because not all established instructional
strategies maximize achievement levels, and they may unintentionally increase theachievement gap (Atlay et al., 2019). Moreover, learning stations (also known as stations orscientific stations) are part of an instructional strategy that provides an alternative way to guide
instruction for diverse learners, differentiate instruction, and foster a positive learning
environment (Tomlinson, 2014). Learning stations are essentially different physical locationsin the classroom where students work on various tasks simultaneously (Jones, 2007). Several
sources provide key characteristics that support the selection of learning stations as an
instructional strategy to use with struggling students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds (e.g., Aydogmus & Senturk, 2019; Jones, 2007; Tomlinson, 2014). One main
characteristic is that the teacher can creatively design and methodically build each station toaddress the students’ academic needs. Learning stations also encourage small group instruction

53

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

and facilitate interactions among peers, which decreases student to teacher ratios. Therefore,
students are in charge of executing their own problem-solving and consequent learning, whichbuilds students’ interest in the content area and allows for more inquiry and discovery.
Additionally, rotating students through learning stations that address their academic
weaknesses can minimize their frustration. As such, students adjust or modify their learning
strategies based on their current station and the intended goal, which may influence them topractice self-regulated learning.
Although cooperative learning, feedback, and tutoring seem like promising approaches,
providing the most suitable teaching interventions for students from socioeconomicallydisadvantaged households is still a conundrum (Dietrichson et al., 2017). Therefore, thepurpose of the study is to investigate the effects of learning station utilization on thedevelopment of academic achievement and self-regulated learning among middle school
students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The following questions guided
the current study:
1. How effective is the learning stations strategy in the development of academic
achievement among second-year middle school students?
2. How effective is the learning stations strategy in the development of self-regulated
learning among second-year middle school students?
3. What is the relationship between academic achievement and self-regulated learning
among second-year middle school students?
Literature Review
Learning Stations
Learning stations are part of an instructional strategy that supports differentiation (Tomlinson,2014). Learning stations are distinguished locations (e.g., distinguished by signs, symbols, orcolors) in the classroom where groups of students collaboratively work on different tasks
simultaneously to learn content and develop skills related to a topic. The groups rotate fromstation to station until each group of students has completed all the tasks. Additionally,
designing learning stations and setting up the classroom can take different forms. Two to fourlearning stations are ideal for most classrooms, and student groups should range from four to
six members. Furthermore, each learning station is recommended to have simple instructions
that students can quickly read and spend approximately 10–15 minutes accomplishing at eachlearning station (Jarrett, 2010). Moreover, there are varying arrangements for learning stations
that are premeditated based on the nature of the subject, available class time, and student’s
grade level, such as exploration stations, reading stations, yes-or-no stations, visual stations,acting stations, electronic stations, and art stations.
In the context of middle school education, the learning stations strategy has been examined inseveral subject areas. For example, Suoed and Taha (2020) investigated the effect of using
learning stations on student achievement in a computer course. Suoed and Taha employed aquasi-experimental design using 72 second-year male middle school students who weredivided into an experimental and control group. This study included four learning stations: anelectronic station, exploration station, reading station, and visual station. Using a multiplechoice achievement test, the results revealed a significant difference between the mean scoresof both groups in favor of the experimental group. The researchers elaborated that the learning
stations strategy created a positive learning environment for the students to engage with eachother, ask questions, and actively interact with the lesson and its materials.

54

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Allihaibi (2015) conducted a study that revealed the impact of learning stations on developing
achievement and positive attitudes toward the subject of physics. The sample was composedof 60 second-year male middle school students who were divided equally into the experimentalgroup and in the control group. This study used three learning stations: an exploration station,a reading station, and a yes-or-no station. The researchers used a multiple-choice achievement
test and a three-point Likert scale to gauge participants’ attitudes toward physics and collectdata from them. The results showed significant differences in favor of the experimental groupbetween the mean scores in the post-application of the achievement test and the attitude toward
the physics questionnaire. The researchers concluded that the learning stations provided
students with an opportunity to constructively build their own knowledge by graduallydeveloping their understanding of physics at each station. Additionally, the researchers
indicated that the learning stations allowed students to engage in meaningful science discoursethat may have influenced their positive attitudes toward physics.
Another example is Al-Hafidh’s (2020) study that aimed to explore the effect of learning
stations on developing deductive thinking in science among first-year middle school students.
The sample was composed of 65 students divided into an experimental (30 students) andcontrol (35 students) group. This study had four learning stations: an electronic station,
exploratory station, imaginary station, reading station, audio station, and a yes-or-no station.
The researchers developed a 20-item deductive reasoning test. The findings showed significant
differences between the mean scores of both groups in the post-application of the deductive
reasoning test in favor of the experimental group. The researcher stressed that the learning
station approach allowed students to interact with various educational stations that helped themconstruct their own knowledge and work with their peers to create a sound cognitive structure.
Overall, these studies highlight that the number and type of learning stations should be chosen
based on the nature of the subject and content being taught. Additionally, hardly any studies
have investigated the effects of learning stations on developing academic achievement and selfregulated learning among middle school students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds.
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated learning can be defined as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions thatare planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (Zimmerman, 2000, p.
14). As such, self-regulated learning centers around the individual’s active and constructive
processes of planning, monitoring, implementing, and reflecting to attain academic
achievement (Pintrich, 2000). Additionally, self-regulated learners are active agents in theirlearning process by planning, setting goals, and engaging in strategies to enhance their progress
toward academic achievement (Zimmerman, 1986). Furthermore, self-regulated learning
strategies are systematically directed toward the achievement of learning goals. As such, selfregulation is a multidimensional construct that can be categorized into the following strategies:
cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management (Pintrich et al., 1991; Pintrich, 2004;
Zimmerman, 1990). Based on the studies mentioned above, we used the following definitionsof self-regulated learning in the current study. Cognitive strategies refer to methods andtechniques the learner uses to integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge, which also
involves contribution strategies that help them recall, elaborate on, and organize ideas.
Metacognitive strategies refer to the learner’s self-awareness about their cognitive processes
and the strategies they employ to set goals and monitor, plan, and regulate their learning.
Resource management refers to the learner’s ability to manage and control their learning
environment to achieve their goals using tools such as time and effort, management, helpseeking, and peer-learning. Overall, many studies have highlighted that self-regulated students

55

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

adopt strategies that align with the cognitive demands of tasks and activities to better reach
their goals of high academic achievement (e.g., Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007;
Komarraju & Nadler, 2013).
Methodology and Methods
Population and Sample
General education in Saudi Arabia consists of three stages: six years in elementary school,
three years in middle school, and three years in high school. The population in this study wascomposed of second-year middle school female students from public middle schools in the cityof Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Of the 20 public middle schools in Khobar, two schools containstudents of low socioeconomic status due to low income and education achievement in theirfamily’s households. Random sampling was not possible because selection of the middle
schools had to be disclosed to the Department of Planning and Development in the Eastern
Province Branch of the Ministry of Education so that ethical approval could be obtained. Thus,
we purposefully approached one of the two middle schools that were willing to participate in
the study.
Research Design
A quasi-experimental design with an experimental and control group and a pretest and posttest
was used to investigate the study’s research questions. The chosen middle school consisted offive second-year classes. Two classes were randomly selected. Thirty-three students comprised
the experimental group, and 35 students comprised the control group. The experimental group
received the pretest, the treatment (learning stations), and the posttest. The control group
received a pretest followed by a posttest. All students in both groups were of low
socioeconomic status (i.e., from households with low income and educational achievement).
Additionally, there were no differences between the two groups regarding the following
extraneous variables: gender, age, educational content, or previous academic achievement.
Furthermore, the subject of science was chosen because both the school’s principal andacademic counselor indicated that science was a challenging subject for their second-year
students, and the students were at risk of having a significant achievement gap in science.
Furthermore, the following two units from the science textbook were used for this study:“Support, Locomotion, and Response” and “Reproduction and Development.” The first unit
included two lessons, which were “Skin and Muscles” and “The Skeleton and Nervous
Systems.” The second unit included two lessons, which were “The Endocrine and Reproductive
Systems” and “Stages of Human Life.”
Research Tools
The development of the academic achievement test. The academic achievement test wasdeveloped to measure students’ level of understanding related to the “Support, Locomotion,
and Response” unit and the “Reproduction and Development” unit (see Appendix A). Together
with an expert teacher from the middle school, we examined several resources when drafting
the academic achievement test, which included the learning objectives of each lesson, thescientific concepts in each unit, previous academic achievement tests carried out in the school,and samples of academic achievement tests supplied by the Saudi Education and Training
Evaluation Commission. The academic achievement test included 28 multiple-choicequestions designed to test different cognitive levels – remembering, understanding, applying,
and analyzing (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

56

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Moreover, content validity was established by having the test reviewed by two curriculum andinstruction professors at the researchers’ university. They were asked to review the test’sdegree of representation in the content, the clarity of the questions, the suitability of thealternatives for each of the questions, and the suitability of the questions for the corresponding
cognitive level and give any other necessary feedback. Accordingly, changes were made basedon the reviewers’ feedback, which included minor wording editing and the cognitive difficultyof some questions. Then, the researchers piloted the test on 58 third-year male middle school
students who were not participants in the study. The internal consistency was assessed by
calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between each question and the total mark for thecognitive level under which the question falls, as shown in the following table:
Table 1
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Academic Achievement Test
Remember
UnderstandPearson Questi
PearsonQuestiCorrelati on
Correlati on
onon
0.693*
1
0.630*
3
0.732*
7
0.559*
90.580*
8
0.683*
100.744*
14
0.584*
18
0.661*
15
0.614*
19
0.595*
16
0.519*
20
0.503*
17
0.638*
21
0.579*
25
0.660*
22
0.727*
27
0.629*
26* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Apply
PearsonCorrelation0.782*
0.862*
0.724*
0.854*

Questi
on
2
4
12
28

Analyze
PearsonCorrelatio
n0.749*
0.813*
0.665*
0.629*
0.762*
0.641*

Questi
on
5
6
13
11
23
24

Table 1 shows that all correlation coefficients between each question and the total mark for a
cognitive level under which the question falls are statistically significant at 0.01, which meansthat the academic achievement demonstrated internal consistency. Additionally, the internalconsistency was calculated for each cognitive level individually with overall test scores. The
value of coefficients for remembering, understanding, applying, and analyzing were 0.722,
0.665, 0.603, and 0.648, respectively. Thus, all coefficients were statistically significant
correlations at 0.01, indicating an existing strong internal consistency of the test. Furthermore,
the reliability of the test was verified through two methods Cronbach’s alpha and split-halfreliability (Spearman–Brown). We calculated the results of both methods to be 0.865 and
0.867, respectively. This indicates high reliability and thus confirms the appropriateness of thetest for application.
Furthermore, the difficulty and discrimination coefficients were examined for each question.
The difficulty coefficients ranged from 0.38 to 0.76 with an average of 0.58, and thediscrimination coefficients ranged from 0.31 to 0.69 with an average of 0.54. Accordingly, theacademic achievement questions have appropriate difficulty and discrimination coefficients,
and thus they are considered suitable. Finally, the academic achievement test tookapproximately 40 minutes to complete.
Development of the self-regulated learning questionnaire. The self-regulated-learningquestionnaire consisted of the following three components of learning strategies, each of which

57

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

includes three skills as follows: (1) cognitive strategies: recalling information, organizing, andelaborating; (2) metacognitive strategies: planning, regulating, and monitoring; and (3)resource management strategies: time managing, peer learning, and help-seeking. These
specific self-regulated-learning strategies and associated skills were chosen because of theirsuitability for the abilities of the study participants, and the items were taken from literature in
the context of middle school education (e.g., Al-Shammari, 2019; Muhammad, 2017). The
questionnaire consisted of 36 statements, with each skill having four statements. Negative
phrases were considered in the development of the questionnaire, and negative statements were
included in items 8, 16, and 36. The questionnaire included a three-point Likert scale: rarely(score 1), sometimes (score 2), and always (score 3). Two experts in educational psychology
reviewed the questionnaire to confirm content validity. They were asked to evaluate each item
for clarity, readability, and relevance. All necessary changes recommended by the reviewers
were addressed, which mostly involved wording and minor grammatical changes to avoid
misinterpretation and ensure clarity. Then, the questionnaire was pilot tested on 58 middle
school students who were not participants in the study. The internal consistency was assessedby calculating Pearson correlation coefficients (refer to Table 2).
Table 2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Self-Regulated Learning
Questionnaire
Recalling information
Organizing
No. Pearson
No. Pearson
Correlation
Correlation
1
0.803*
5
0.738*
2
0.769*
6
0.758*
3
0.792*
7
0.837*
4
0.749*
8
0.733*
Planning
Regulating
No. Pearson
No. Pearson
Correlation
Correlation
13
0.778*
17
0.837*
14
0.805*
18
0.775*
15
0.798*
19
0.773*
16
0.774*
20
0.859*
Time managing
Peer learning
No. Pearson
No. Pearson
Correlation
Correlation
25
0.882*
29
0.804*
26
0.768*
30
0.796*
27
0.847*
31
0.784*
28
0.805*
32
0.825** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Elaborating
No. Pearson
Correlation
90.783*
10
0.843*
11
0.827*
12
0.775*
Monitoring
No. Pearson
Correlation
21
0.866*
22
0.815*
23
0.828*
24
0.842*
Help-seeking
No. Pearson
Correlation
33
0.811*
34
0.747*
35
0.802*
36
0.826*

Table 2 shows that all correlation coefficients between each statement and the total mark forthe habit of mind under which the statements fall are statistically significant at 0.01 and 0.05,
indicating that the questionnaire is internally consistent. Additionally, we calculated theinternal consistency of each skill with overall questionnaire scores. The values of thecoefficients were as follows: recalling information (0.646), organizing (0.589), elaborating(0.752), planning (0.661), regulating (0.679), monitoring (0.699), time managing (0.662), peer

58

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

learning (0.768), and help-seeking (0.575). The values of the coefficients were statisticallysignificant at 0.01. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested by using Cronbach’s alpha,which was calculated as 0.925, and split-half reliability (Spearman–Brown), which wasestimated as 0.872, both of which are acceptable degrees of reliability. The questionnaire tookapproximately 20 minutes to complete (see Appendix).
Teachers’ guide to learning stations. In Saudi middle schools, science is generally taught
four times per week, and each class is 45 minutes long. In this study, we used three learning
stations: an exploration station, visual station, and reading station. At the exploration station,
students were engaged in hands-on activities where they carried out and explored a specificconcept from their lesson. Then, students moved to the visual station, where a computer screen
was set up for them to watch a video clip related to the lesson content. Finally, the students
proceeded to the reading station, where they interacted with a scientific text related to thelesson. At this station, the students linked and extracted information included in the reading
text with previous knowledge gained from the exploration and visual stations. They also
engaged in reading activities, such as identifying main ideas, underlining key concepts, andexpressing meaning in their own words. At each station, the students were asked to take notes
and answer questions on the accompanying worksheets.
Furthermore, we developed a teacher’s guide to learning stations for the “Support, Locomotion,
and Response” and “Reproduction and Development” units. The guide includes the following
sections: introduction to learning stations strategy, lesson objectives, scientific concepts
included in each lesson, lesson plans according to learning stations, using learning stations inlarger classes, and worksheets for each learning station. The teacher’s guide was reviewed by
two science education professors and by an experienced middle school teacher. Necessarychanges were made upon receiving their written feedback and verbal suggestions.
Procedures
Before carrying out the study, we sought approval from the Eastern Province Office of the
Ministry of Education, which issued a letter to the targeted middle school allowing us to
conduct the study with second-year female middle school students. All participating students,
their parents, and the classroom teacher agreed to voluntarily participate in the study.
Moreover, we applied descriptive statistics to analyze the data of this study, which included
calculating the mean, standard deviation (SD), and degrees of freedom (df) values for both theacademic achievement test and self-regulated learning questionnaire. Additionally, we used
Pearson correlation coefficients to investigate the connection between the two dependent
variables. Initially, the normality in each group was estimated using a Shapiro–Wilk’s test, theresults of which showed that each had nonsignificant readings and followed a normal
distribution. As a result, we employed inferential statistics, which included a t-test forindependent samples to identify differences between the experimental and control groups indeveloping the academic achievement test and self-regulated learning questionnaire and theeta-squared (η2) coefficient to calculate the effects of the size of learning stations on academic
achievement and self-regulated learning.
Furthermore, we administered the pretest using the test and questionnaire on the chosen
experimental and control group to verify their equivalence. We examined the equivalence ofthe two groups by using an independent sample t-test. Table 3 illustrates the results.

59

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Table 3
T-Test Results for the Pretest Academic Achievement Test
Group

N

Mean

SD

df

T valueSignificancelevel

Experimental
Control

33
35

7.39
7.71

2.16
2.26

67

0.597

0.553

Table 4
T-Test Results for the Pretest Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire
Group

N

Mean

SD

df

T valueSignificancelevel

Experimental
Control

33
35

56.52
54.69

7.55
8.37

67

0.944

0.348

Tables 3 and 4 show that the test significance level is above 0.05, which indicates that there
are no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups.
Therefore, there is equivalence between both groups. Finally, after the four-week treatment
was completed, we conducted the posttest by using both instruments for the experimental andcontrol groups.
Results
Research Question One
To answer the first research question, we tested the following hypothesis: “There are no
statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) between the posttest mean scores of theexperimental and control groups in the academic achievement test.” Table 5 shows thesummary statistics for testing this hypothesis, which corresponds to the first research question.
Table 5
Posttest Summary Statistics for the Academic Achievement Test
Group

N

Mean

SD

df

T-testExperimental
Control

33
35

25.36
18.17

1.85
3.13

67

11.44

η2

Significance
level

0.665

0.00

Table 5 reveals that the significance level is less than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis isrejected, which means that the use of learning stations made a difference in the posttest in favorof the experimental group. Additionally, eta squared (η2) is calculated at 0.665, revealing alarge effect size. This indicates that learning stations had a significant and effective impact on
the students’ performance on the academic achievement test.
Research Question Two
To answer the second research question, we tested the following hypothesis: “There are no
statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) between the posttest mean scores of theexperimental and control groups in the self-regulated learning questionnaire.” Table 6 shows
the summary statistics for testing this hypothesis, which corresponds to the second researchquestion.

60

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Table 6
Posttest Summary Statistics for the Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire
Group

N

Mean

SD

df

T-testExperimental
Control

33
35

100.12
65.77

5.59
9.65

67

17.81

η2

Significance
level

0.828

0.00

Table 6 shows that the significance level is less than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis isrejected, which means that the use of learning stations made a difference in the posttest in favorof the experimental group. Additionally, eta squared (η2) is calculated at 0.828, which is alarge effect size. This indicates that learning stations had a significant and effective impact on
the development of students’ self-regulated learning.
Research Question Three
To answer the third research question, we tested the following hypothesis: “There are no
statistically significant correlations at (α ≤ 0.05) between academic achievement and selfregulated learning among middle-school students.” Table 7 shows the summary statistics fortesting the third hypothesis, which corresponds to the third research question.
Table 7
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients Between Academic Achievement and Self-Regulated
Learning
Group

N

Pearson Correlation

Experimental
Control

33
35

0.534
0.125

Significance
level
0.001
0.474

Table 7 shows that the correlation coefficient in the case of the experimental group reached0.534, which is greater than that of the control group 0.125. The significance level for theexperimental group is less than 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Additionally,
there is a positive correlation for the experimental group between students’ achievement on thetest and their development of self-regulated learning when using learning stations.
Discussion
Regarding the learning stations strategy making a difference in the post academic achievement
test in favor of the experimental group, a possible explanation could be the collective effect of
the three learning stations on the students’ achievement on the test. In the exploration station,
students were given the opportunity to learn through their own interactions with tangible
experiences. The activities in this station stimulated students’ curiosity, established a desire tolearn, and raised questions. As students progressed, spontaneous processes of exploring new
ideas were triggered to address questions or problems they encountered during the explanation
activities. Ocak (2010) stressed that exploration stations are active and dynamic, which
provides students with the opportunities for experimentation to develop their personal
knowledge and meaning.
Furthermore, considerable empirical evidence reveals that students of low socioeconomic
status are more likely to have poor reading and writing skills (e.g., Ming & Powell 2010;61

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Wamba, 2010). As such, the visual station may have helped the students who are weaker inthese areas by maximizing their cognitive and emotional awareness. Additionally, the visual
station worked to bring scientific concepts of the lessons closer to the students’ minds andhelped to embody verbal meanings that the students could easily perceive by watching thevideo clips. Berk (2009) explained how educational video clips are processed in students’brains. Berk concluded that educational video clips have the potential to tap into students’ core
intelligence and interpersonal emotions. Similarly, Choudhury (2011) indicated that video clips
could support students’ retentive memory and help them recall what was taught in class.
Moreover, the reading station set the final stage to address the concepts of the lesson. This
station provided the students with more formal instruction by having them read texts that wereoriented toward the lessons’ concepts. Because the students engaged in both experimentationand visual activities, the reading station encouraged an active search for meaning rather thanmechanical memorization and a lack of meaningful connection when learning the scientificconcepts. Overall, comparisons of our findings with those of other studies confirm that using
learning stations significantly affects students’ academic achievement levels compared to using
conventional educational methods (Al-Hafidh, 2020; Allihaibi, 2015; Suoed & Taha, 2020).
With respect to the learning stations making a difference in the post-self-regulated-learningquestionnaire in favor of the experimental group, a possible explanation is that each learning
station created a cooperative and engaging context for solving problems and fostered thedevelopment of students’ self-regulated learning. The exploration station’s activities
emphasized the continuity of self-learning and pushed the student toward researching andemploying their ideas in problem-solving, which enhanced their self-regulated learning skills.
Additionally, the exploratory nature of the learning station’s activities may have assisted thestudents in remembering and retrieving information, which in turn facilitated the process ofretaining and organizing the lesson’s content and concepts in the student’s cognitive structure
to improve long-term retrieval. Previous researchers indicated that practicing activities thatallow students to adopt cognitive strategies (i.e., planning, elaboration, and organization)
deepens their engagement with the lesson content, which aids them in remembering andretrieving information (Pintrich, 2003).
The learning stations also provided the students with the opportunity to employ metacognitive
strategies. Across the stations, students took responsibility when dealing with the activities andidentifying their strengths and weaknesses while learning, which prompted them to employ
metacognitive strategies such as planning, regulating, and monitoring their learning.
Additionally, with each station having a specific time limit, students would search for effective
ways to increase their awareness and understanding at each station using self-regulated learning(i.e., resource-management). Collectively, the study’s results suggest that the systematic andexploratory nature of the learning station provided the students with a greater awareness of
their self-regulated learning skills. Additionally, the study’s findings align with those ofprevious studies, which indicated that students with varying backgrounds and abilities could
develop self-regulated learning strategies (Lichtinger & Kaplan, 2011; Nilson, 2013).
Furthermore, using the learning stations, we were able to show a positive correlation between
academic achievement and self-regulated learning. Several studies indicated that students oflow socioeconomic status face unfavorable odds in attaining academic success and narrowing
the achievement gap (Johnson et al., 2011; Sirin, 2005; Thomson, 2018). Additionally,classroom context has been recognized as a significant contributor to students’ development ofself-regulated learning (e.g., Paris & Paris, 2001; Turner & Meyer, 2000). As such, a possible
explanation for this result may be that the learning stations created a dynamic classroom
context where students in each station were required to be active learners by working toward

62

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

successfully completing the station’s activity (e.g., the station’s worksheets), as well as
deliberate planning and monitoring the accomplishment of the station’s task. The instructionalsettings of the learning station allowed students to deepen and manipulate the associatedcontent of the lessons. That is, each station played a role in encouraging students to employ
various cognitive approaches to acquire the content knowledge of the lesson and develop
processes by which they could exercise control over their thinking, affect, and behavior (i.e.,
self-regulated learning).
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of learning stations on developing
academic achievement and self-regulated learning among students from socioeconomicallydisadvantaged backgrounds. Results from the current study suggest that teachers can use
learning stations to benefit students of low socioeconomic status and develop their academic
achievement and self-regulated learning. The academic achievement growth seen in theexperimental group might be explained by considering the multiple opportunities students had
to address the content of the lesson at each station (i.e., exploration, visual, and reading
stations). The continued exposure to the lesson content and information may have been
sufficient for acquiring knowledge. Furthermore, it is important to note that classroom
activities that are easy to complete might make students lose interest, and activities that are too
challenging are likely to make them feel frustrated or lost (Gilliam, 2015). As such, findings
from the current study suggest that the learning stations created a classroom context that offereda reasonable amount of challenge, which prompted students to engage in self-regulatory
behaviors, such as organizing, monitoring, peer-learning, time-managing, and help-seeking.
Our purposeful sampling may be viewed as a potential limitation. However, the Saudi
educational system is centralized, so it is likely that little variation in the results will be present
when similar studies are conducted in the region. Moreover, further research could explore
students’ attitudes toward the use of learning stations strategy and the use of observation sheets
to investigate pre-service or in-service teachers’ skills when using the strategy. Teacher
education programs and professional development workshops should include experiences andinstructional strategies that adequately meet the needs of students of low socioeconomic status.
Considering the importance of sustainable education in improving the futures of students oflow socioeconomic status, further research is needed to evaluate other instructional strategies
that have the potential to narrow the achievement gap and develop students’ learning abilities.

63

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

References
Acar, Ö. (2019). Investigation of the science achievement models for low and high achieving
schools and gender differences in Turkey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,56(5), 649–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21517
Al-Hafidh, H. (2020). Effect of using scientific stations strategy in developing deductive
thinking of intermediate school students in general sciences. International Journal of
Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.9756/int-jecse/v12i2.201054
Allihaibi, A. (2015). The impact of scientific stations strategy on the achievement of second
intermediate students and their inclination towards physics. Al-Fatih Journal, 11(62),
202–236. https://alfatehmag.uodiyala.edu.iq/pages?id=49
Al-Shammari, Z. (2019). The effectiveness of a proposed strategy based on self-regulated
learning in developing reflective reading skills among middle school students in Hail.
Arabic Studies in Education and Psychology, 3(106), 71–110.
https://doi.org/10.21608/saep.2019.49375
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.E. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, andassessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Atlay, C., Tieben, N., Hillmert, S., & Fauth, B. (2019). Instructional quality and achievement
inequality: How effective is teaching in closing the social achievement gap? Learning
and Instruction, 63, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.008
Aydogmus, M., & Senturk, C. (2019). The effects of learning stations technique on academic
achievement: A meta-analytic study. Research in Pedagogy, 9(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.17810/2015.87
Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching and video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvUin the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and
Learning, 5(1), 1–21.
Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Students’ adaptation of study
strategies when preparing for classroom tests. Educational Psychology Review, 19,
401–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9025-0
Choudhury, I. (2011). The effect of watching video clips on student performance in aconstruction science course at an undergraduate level. In, 2011 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, (pp. 22–1450).
Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning andacademic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-0159320-8
Dietrichson, J., Bøg, M., Filges, T., & Klint Jørgensen, A. M. (2017). Academic interventions
for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 243–
282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316687036
Gilliam, L. M. (2015). The seven steps to help boys love school: Teaching to their passion forless frustration. Rowman & Littlefield.

64

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009). Almost 30 years of writing research: Making sense of it
all with The Wrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 58–68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.01277.x
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters...a lot. OAH Magazine of History, 13(1), 61–63.
https://doi.org/10.1093/maghis/13.1.61
Hernstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in
American life. Transforming Anthropology, 6(2), 87–89.
https://doi.org/10.1525/tran.1997.6.1-2.87
Hertert, L., & Teague, J. (2003). Narrowing the achievement gap: A review of research,
policies, and issues. EdSource.
Jarrett, O. (2010). “Inventive” learning stations. Science and Children, 47(5), 56–59.
Johnson, S. E., Richeson, J. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Middle class and marginal?
Socioeconomic status, stigma, and self-regulation at an elite university. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 838–852.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021956
Jones, D. J. (2007). The station approach: How to teach with limited resources. Science
Scope, 30(6), 16–21.
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do
implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual
Differences, 25(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005
Lichtinger, E., & Kaplan, A. (2011). Purpose of engagement in academic self‐regulation.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(126), 9–19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.440
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ming, K., & Powell, T. (2010). Emergent literacy: Ways to foster these skills in preschool
children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. NHSA Dialog, 13(2), 126–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15240751003751787
Muhammad, A. (2017). The effect of fish bone strategy on chemistry achievement and selfregulated learning among second grade middle school student. Journal of Educationaland Psychological Research, 14(52), 405–437.
https://www.iasj.net/iasj/article/122695
Nilson, L. B. (2013). Creating self-regulated learners: Strategies to strengthen students’ selfawareness and learning skills. Sterling.
Ocak, G. (2010). The effect of learning stations on the level of academic success andretention of elementary school students. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 146–
157.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3

65

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Pintrich, P.R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology, Vol. 7 (pp. 103–122).
Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0706
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated
learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The University ofMichigan.
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income. Educational Leadership,70(8), 10–16.
Rubin, M., Denson, N., Kilpatrick, S., Matthews, K. E., Stehlik, T., & Zyngier, D. (2014). I
am working-class. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 196–200.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528373
Saud, F. & Taha S. (2020). The effect of the scientific stations strategy on the achievement of
second intermediate students in computer. Journal of Educational and Scientific
Studies, 2(15), 335–354. https://www.iasj.net/iasj/article/177393
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review
of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Thomson, S. (2018). Achievement at school and socioeconomic background—An
educational perspective. Nature Partner Journals Science of Learning, 3(1), 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0022-0
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of alllearners. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts
of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2),69–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3502_2
Wamba, N. G. (2010). Poverty and literacy: An introduction. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
26(3), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903547429
Wronowski, M. L. (2018). Filling the void: A grounded theory approach to addressing
teacher recruitment and retention in urban schools. Education and Urban
Society, 50(6), 548–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713608
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In,
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview forassessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023004614

66

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An
introduction and overview. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch1
Corresponding author: Adam Al Sultan
Email: aaalsultan@iau.edu.sa

67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Appendix A: Academic Achievement Test (Example)
1. The chemical produced by epidermis cells that protects the skin from the sun’s rays andgives it its color is called: (Remember)a. Hemoglobinb. Hormonesc. Melanind. Sweat glands
6. Ligaments differ in their function from the tendon in that they: (Understand)a. Connect the bones together in the joint
b. Move the limb bonesc. Move cartilage
d. Help the spongy bone to move
9. The structure and basic function in the nervous system that conveys nerve impulses in one
direction is called: (Apply)
a. Neuronb. Synaptic cleftc. Spinal cordd. Brain
12. Ahmed fell while playing football. The doctor diagnosed him with a knee joint injury. This
joint type is: (Analyze)
a. Hingeb. Axialc. Sphericald. Sliding
Appendix B: Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire
1.
2.
3.
4.

I repeat difficult concepts when studying science until I memorize them.
I recite important concepts for myself many times so that I will not forget them.
I read definitions aloud several times so that they stick in my mind.
I write down important points several times while studying so that I can rememberthem.
5. I use symbols and shapes to help me organize my studies in science.
6. I create drawings and maps of the concepts in the lessons.
7. I compare scientific concepts when I study science topics.
8. I lack the ability to organize new information into tables and charts.
9. I relate new ideas to what I previously learned while studying science.
10. I underline important phrases to facilitate understanding and review.
11. I summarize the most important things I learned in the lesson in simple paragraphs.
12. I create a hierarchy of lesson ideas.
13. I set goals for myself before I start studying.
14. I make a schedule of my daily activities.
15. I create an action plan before or during my study.
16. I study directly without prioritizing, remembering, or revising lessons.
17. I ask myself questions while studying science to assess my understanding.
18. I compare my answers with those of the teacher in the classroom.
19. I compare my academic progress with that of my classmates.

68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

20. I can spot my mistakes when doing science activities.
21. I mark points that I did not understand while studying.
22. I follow my way of doing the homework.
23. I spot the parts where I made mistakes for review.
24. When I study, I pause from time to time to make sure I understand the material.
25. I organize my time when studying science lessons.
26. I complete my science assignments on time.
27. Before I start studying, I specify times to rest and eat.
28. I prepare for the test well in advance.
29. I exchange notes with my classmates while learning.
30. I enjoy practicing teamwork with my classmates to help one another.
31. When I understand the lesson well, I explain it to my classmates.
32. I participate with classmates to simplify difficult-to-understand scientific concepts.
33. I seek help from others when it is difficult for me to complete my homework.
34. If there is something that I cannot understand, I ask my teacher to explain it to me.
35. I ask my classmates about concepts that I did not understand well in science.
36. I feel embarrassed when I seek help from my classmates to do science activities.

69