Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 573–587 | Cite as

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

  • Geraldine Clarebout
  • Holger Horz
  • Wolfgang Schnotz
  • Jan Elen
Development Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Support devices Learner control Learning environments Self-regulation Goal orientation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

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).

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies with learner-controlled CALL. Calico Journal, 7(2), 25–47.Google Scholar
  7. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2008). Advice on tool use in open learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 81–97.Google Scholar
  9. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009). The complexity of tool use in computer based environments. Instructional Science, 37, 474–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychology, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2005). Opportunities for formative assessment: Use and effect. Rome: Paper presented at the EADTU conference.Google Scholar
  14. Elliot, J. A., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Goforth, D. (1994). Learner control = decision making + information: A model and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gräsel, C., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2000). The use of additional information in problem-oriented learning environments. Learning Environment Research, 3, 287–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional program and learner control: A research review. Education for Information, 14, 95–106.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nederkoorn, C., Guerrieri, R., & Jansen, A. (2006). Leven in Luilekkerland [Living in wonderland]. De Psycholoog, 41(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, R. S. (1998). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perkins, D. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14, 11–17.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schnotz, W., & Heiß, A. (2009). Semantic scaffolds in hypermedia learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Uduma, L., & Morrison, G. R. (2007). How do instructional designers use automated instructional design tool? Computer in Human Behavior, 23, 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vermunt, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viau, R., & Lariveé, J. (1993). Learning tools with hypertext: An experiment. Computers & Education, 20, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wild, K.-P. (2000). Lernstrategien im Studium. Strukturen und Bedingungen [Learning Strategie in Academic Studies Structures an Conditions]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Winne, P. H. (2005). Key issues in modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geraldine Clarebout
    • 1
  • Holger Horz
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Schnotz
    • 3
  • Jan Elen
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.University of Applied Sciences, Northwestern SwitzerlandOltenSwitzerland
  3. 3.University of Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany

Personalised recommendations