Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 161–185 | Cite as

Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning

  • Maria Bannert
  • Peter Reimann
  • Christoph Sonnenberg


Referring to current research on self-regulated learning, we analyse individual regulation in terms of a set of specific sequences of regulatory activities. Successful students perform regulatory activities such as analysing, planning, monitoring and evaluating cognitive and motivational aspects during learning not only with a higher frequency than less successful learners, but also in a different order—or so we hypothesize. Whereas most research has concentrated on frequency analysis, so far, little is known about how students’ regulatory activities unfold over time. Thus, the aim of our approach is to also analyse the temporal order of spontaneous individual regulation activities. In this paper, we demonstrate how various methods developed in process mining research can be applied to identify process patterns in self-regulated learning events as captured in verbal protocols. We also show how theoretical SRL process models can be tested with process mining methods. Thinking aloud data from a study with 38 participants learning in a self-regulated manner from a hypermedia are used to illustrate the methodological points.


Self-regulated learning Temporal patterns in SRL Process mining Fuzzy Miner 



We thank the German Research Foundation for funding (DFG: BA 2044/5-1).


  1. Abbott, A., & Hrycak, A. (1990). Measuring resemblance in sequence data: an optimal matching analysis of musicians’ careers. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 144–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, R., & Srikant, R. (1995). Mining sequential patterns. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE95).Google Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1–2), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory proceses during hypermedia learning: issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: an introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannert, M. (2007). Metakognition beim lernen mit hypermedien. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts: a discussion. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 22(2), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2013). Scaffolding Hypermedia Learning through Metacognitive Prompts. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies. Springer Science.Google Scholar
  10. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2011). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 1, 193–211.Google Scholar
  11. Biggs, J. B. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185–228). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 5(2), 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biswas, G., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Segedy, J. R. (2012). Analyzing Student Learning and Metacognitive Processes in a Choice-Rich Science Learning Environment. Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Metacognition. Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
  14. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Beer, H. T., & van den Brand, P. C. W. (2007). The LTL checker plugins. A (reference) manual. Eindhoven: University of Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  20. De Jong, F. (1994). Task and student dependency in using self-regulation activities: consequences for process-oriented instruction. In F. de Jong & B. van Hout-Wolters (Eds.), Process-oriented instruction: Verbal and pictorial aid and comprehension strategies (pp. 87–99). Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition. Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gill, A. (1962). Introduction to the theory of finite-state machines. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Glymour, C., Madigan, D., Predibon, D., & Smyth, P. (1996). Statistical inference and data mining. Communication of the ACM, 39, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Günther, C., & van der Aalst, W. (2007). Fuzzy Mining: Adaptive process simplification based on multi-perspective metrics. In G. Alonso, P. Dadam, & M. Rosemann (Eds.), International conference on business process management (BPM 2007) (pp. 328–343). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 6(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers and Education, 51, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychological Review, 18, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kristensen, L. M., Christensen, S., & Jensen, K. (1998). The practitioner’s guide to coloured Petri nets. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 2, 98–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lajoie, S. P., & Lu, J. (2012). Supporting collaboration with technology: does shared cognition lead to co-regulation in medicine? Metacognition and Learning, 7, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.Google Scholar
  34. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A., & De Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and prior domain knowledge: to what extent does monitoring mediate their relationship with hypermedia learning? Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perera, D., Kay, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., & Zaiane, O. (2009). Clustering and sequential pattern mining of online collaborative learning data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 759–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Poole, M. S., van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes. Theories and methods for research. New Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W. A. (2005). Use of the extreme groups approach: a critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10(2), 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ProM (Version 5.0) [Computer Software]. (2008). Retrieved from
  43. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: variable-and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reimann, P., & Yacef, K. (2013). Using process mining for understanding learning. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. D. M. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of design in educational technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Reimann, P., Frerejean, J., & Thompson, K. (2009). Using process mining to identify models of group decision making processes in chat data. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning practives: CSCL2009 conference proceedings (pp. 98–107). Rhodes: International Society for the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  46. Reisig, W. (1985). Petri nets. An introduction. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robero, C., Ventura, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Baker, R. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of educational data mining. Boca Raton: Chapman&Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  48. Rozinat, A., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2006). Decision mining in ProM. In S. Dustdar, J. L. Fiadeiro, & A. Sheth (Eds.), BPM 2006, volume 4102 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 420–425). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Rozinat, A., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2008). Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Eindhoven University.Google Scholar
  50. Sanderson, P. M., & Fisher, C. (1994). Exploratory sequential data analysis: foundations. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 251–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2012). Exploring regulatory processes during a computer-supported collaborative learning task using process mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1321–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sun, R., Coward, L. A., & Zenzen, M. J. (2005). On levels of cognitive modeling. Philosphical Psychology, 18(5), 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trčka, N., Pechenizkiy, M., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2010). Process mining from educational data. In C. Robero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 123–142). Boca Raton: Chapman&Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (1995). Graph theoretic techniques for examining patterns and strategies in studentsstudying: An application of LogMill. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  59. Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2009). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wirth, J. (2004). Selbstregulation von Lernprozessen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  62. Zhou, M., Xu, Y. X., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Sequential pattern analysis of learning logs: Methodology and applications. In C. Robero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 107–121). Boca Raton: Chapman&Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitiv perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Bannert
    • 1
  • Peter Reimann
    • 2
  • Christoph Sonnenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Instructional MediaUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Computer-Supported Learning and CognitionUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations