Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 2, Issue 2–3, pp 67–87 | Cite as

The effect of a human agent’s external regulation upon college students’ hypermedia learning

  • Roger AzevedoEmail author
  • Jeffrey A. Greene
  • Daniel C. Moos
Article

Abstract

In this study we examined the effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) and externally regulated learning (ERL) on college students’ learning about a science topic with hypermedia during a 40-min session. A total of 82 college students with little knowledge of the topic were randomly assigned either to the SRL or ERL condition. Students in the SRL condition regulated their own learning, while students in the ERL condition had access to a human tutor who facilitated their self-regulated learning. We converged product (pretest–posttest declarative knowledge and qualitative shifts in participants’ mental models) with process (think-aloud) data to examine the effectiveness of SRL versus ERL. Analysis of the declarative knowledge measures showed that the ERL condition group mean was statistically significantly higher than the group mean for the SRL condition on the labeling and flow diagram tasks. There were no statistically significant differences between groups on the matching task, but both groups showed statistically significant increases in performance. Further analyses showed that the odds of being in a higher mental model posttest group were decreased by 65% for the SRL group as compared to the ERL group. In terms of SRL behavior, participants in the SRL condition engaged in more use of selecting new information sources, re-reading, summarizing, free searching, and enacting control over the context of their learning. In comparison, the ERL participants engaged in more activation of prior knowledge, utilization of feeling of knowing and judgment of learning, monitoring their progress toward goals, drawing, hypothesizing, coordination of information sources, and expressing task difficulty.

Keywords

Self-regulated learning Externally-regulated learning Science Hypermedia Tutoring Learning Mixed-methods Think-aloud protocols 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (Early Career Grant ROLE#0133346, REESE #0633918, and ROLE#0731828) awarded to the first author. The authors would like to thank Fielding Winters, Dr. Jennifer Cromley, Angie Lucier, and Neil Hofman, for transcribing the audio data. The authors would like to thank three reviewers for comments and feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Azevedo, R. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Computers as MetaCognitive tools to enhance learning? Instructional Science, 30(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005a). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2005b). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R. (in press). The role of self-regulation in learning about science with hypermedia. In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction.Google Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004a). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004b). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. C. (in press). Why is externally-regulated learning more effective than self -regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development.Google Scholar
  11. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A.M. (in press). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In A. Graesser, J. Dunlosky, & D. Hacker (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22, 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeMaris, A. (2004). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Encarta. (2003). Microsoft electronic encyclopedia [Computer software]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. R. Hoffman, & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, B. A. (1993). The human tutorial dialogue project: Issues in the design of instructional systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Graesser, A. C., Bowers, C. A., Hacker, D. J., & Person, N. K. (1997). An anatomy of naturalistic tutoring. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Effective scaffolding of instruction. Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kruez, R., & The Tutoring Research Group (2000). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007a). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007b). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene, J. G., Moos, D. C., Azevedo, R. & Winters, F. I. (in press). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers and Education.Google Scholar
  29. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 803–821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Lepper, M., & Wolverton, M. (2002). The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In J. Aranson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). The role of goal structure in undergraduates’ use of self-regulatory variables in two hypermedia learning tasks. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(1), 49–86.Google Scholar
  33. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  34. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapiro, A. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapiro, A. (2000). The effect of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 57–78.Google Scholar
  37. Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  41. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–102.Google Scholar
  42. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, B. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, B., & Tsikalas, K. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 267––271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Azevedo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeffrey A. Greene
    • 2
  • Daniel C. Moos
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Institute for Intelligent SystemsUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina, Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Gustavus Adolphus CollegeSaint PeterUSA

Personalised recommendations