Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relation between self-regulation and the embedding of support in learning environments

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study investigates whether embedding support may provide a solution to sub optimal use of support and whether this is related to learners’ self-regulation skills and goal orientation. Sixty students were divided in a condition where support was embedded and a condition where support was non-embedded. Results reveal that the embedded group used more and spent more time on the use of support. Quality of use differed for one support device only, with quality being higher in the non-embedded group. An interaction with self-regulation was found. High self-regulators use the support devices less optimal when support is embedded. No conclusions could be drawn with respect to goal orientation. Quality of usage and proportional time spent on support influenced learning outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This assumption relates to learners of high-school age or older.

References

  • Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73, 277–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbreton, A. (1998). Student goal orientation and help-seeking strategy use. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 95–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C., Davidson, G., Williams, M., & Kalweit, C. M. (1986). Instructional options and encouragement effects in a micro-computer concept lesson. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 222–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies with learner-controlled CALL. Calico Journal, 7(2), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2008). Advice on tool use in open learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009). The complexity of tool use in computer based environments. Instructional Science, 37, 474–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1990). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathetmathantics. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), European research in an international context: Volume 2. Learning and Instruction (pp. 1–22). Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychology, 41, 1040–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2005). Opportunities for formative assessment: Use and effect. Rome: Paper presented at the EADTU conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, J. A., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elshout, J. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Van Hall, J. G. (1993). Using the computer as a help tool during learning by doing. Computer and Education, 21(1–2), 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current literature review. Educational Technology, 30(11), 47–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goforth, D. (1994). Learner control = decision making + information: A model and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gräsel, C., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2000). The use of additional information in problem-oriented learning environments. Learning Environment Research, 3, 287–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007, April). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the development of sophisticated mental models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horz, H., Winter, C., & Fries, S. (2009). Differential effects of situated prompts on learning behaviour in authentic simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 818–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional program and learner control: A research review. Education for Information, 14, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. B., & Lehman, J. D. (1993). Instructional cueing in hypermedia: A study with active and passive learners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(1), 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, R. L., Valcke, M. M., & Portier, S. J. (1997). Interactive learning environments to support independent learning: The impact of discernability of embedded scaffolds. Computers in Education, 28, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederkoorn, C., Guerrieri, R., & Jansen, A. (2006). Leven in Luilekkerland [Living in wonderland]. De Psycholoog, 41(1), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, R. S. (1998). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1995). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Effects of grade, goal, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 352–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(2), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 452–502). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Heiß, A. (2009). Semantic scaffolds in hypermedia learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 371–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2005). Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-regulated learning program for gifted mathematics underachievers. International Educational Journal, 6, 261–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uduma, L., & Morrison, G. R. (2007). How do instructional designers use automated instructional design tool? Computer in Human Behavior, 23, 536–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viau, R., & Lariveé, J. (1993). Learning tools with hypertext: An experiment. Computers & Education, 20, 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wild, K.-P. (2000). Lernstrategien im Studium. Strukturen und Bedingungen [Learning Strategie in Academic Studies Structures an Conditions]. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, K.-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium. Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und Reliabilität eines neuen Fragebogens [Learning strategies in academic studies. Results about factor structure and reliability of a new questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15, 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Macmillan Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2005). Key issues in modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 232–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. A. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, J. (2005). Selbstreguliertes Lernen in komplexen und dynamischen Situationen. Die Nutzung von Handlungsdaten zur Erfassung verschiedener Aspekte der Lernprozess-regulation. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis Learning Strategies and Metacognition: Implications for Research and Practice (pp. 101–127). Waxmann: Münster.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Regine Wittermann and Hélian Guislain for their help in adapting the learning material to a German setting; Carolin Hoenicke for her conscientious help with the experiments, and Patrick Guislain for his thorough language check. This research was made possible due to an internationalization grant of the group Humanities and Social Sciences of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and due to a grant of the Flemish Research Council (project G.0480.09).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Vesaliusstraat 2, Box 3770, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Geraldine Clarebout & Jan Elen

  2. University of Applied Sciences, Northwestern Switzerland, Riggenbachstrasse 16, 4600, Olten, Switzerland

    Holger Horz

  3. University of Koblenz-Landau, Thomas-Nast-Strasse 44, 76829, Landau, Germany

    Wolfgang Schnotz

Authors
  1. Geraldine Clarebout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holger Horz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfgang Schnotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Elen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geraldine Clarebout.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Schnotz, W. et al. The relation between self-regulation and the embedding of support in learning environments. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 573–587 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9147-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9147-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation