Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 211–228 | Cite as

Learning from Learning Kits: gStudy Traces of Students’ Self-Regulated Engagements with Computerized Content

  • Nancy E. PerryEmail author
  • Philip H. Winne
Original Article


Researching self-regulated learning (SRL) as a process that evolves across multiple episodes of studying poses large methodological challenges. While self-report data provide useful information about learners’ perceptions of learning, these data are not reliable indicators of studying tactics learners actually use while studying, especially when learners are young children. We argue that self-reports about SRL need to be augmented by fine-grained traces that are records of learners’ actual activities as they study. We describe how gStudy software unobtrusively collects detailed trace data about learners’ use of study tactics as they engage with content presented in learning kits—collections of documents (e.g., texts, graphics, video clips) and tasks (e.g., notes, concept maps) on which learners operate to study. We suggest that trace data can advance research about how learners select, monitor, assemble, rehearse, and translate information to learn it, and provide raw materials for mapping SRL and its effects. Examples from the Life Cycles Learning Kit that supports grade 1 students learning about the life cycles of humans and frogs are given.

Key words

Self-regulated learning Metacognition 



The authors wish to thank Carolyn Thauberger and Ken MacAllister for their contributions to the development of the Frog Life Cycles Learning Kit.


  1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain, K. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). The relation between motivational patterns and achievement cognitions through the elementary school years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 25–52.Google Scholar
  5. Greer, J., McCalla, G., Cooke, J., Collins, J., Kumar, V., Bishop, A., &Vassileva, J. (2000). Integrating cognitive tools for peer help: The intelligent intranet peer help-desk project. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools, volume two: No more walls (pp. 69–96). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Winne, P. H., & Kumar, V. (2005, April). Tracing self-regulated learning in an E-learning environment. Montreal: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  7. Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2005). Roles for software technologies in advancing research and theory in educational psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 1–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622–670). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2005). Effects of concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  11. Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and the contexts that promote it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perry, N. E. (In press). Using self-regulated learning to accommodate differences among students in classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Perry, N., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1854–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). Orlando, Florida: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winne, P. H. (1992). State-of-the-art instructional computing systems that afford instruction and bootstrap research. In M. Jones & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Adaptive learning environments: Foundations and frontiers (pp. 349–380). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed, pp. 153–189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Winne, P. H., Gupta, L., & Nesbit, J. C. (1994). Exploring individual differences in studying strategies using graph theoretic statistics. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 177–193.Google Scholar
  30. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Kumar, V., & Beaudoin, L. (2005). gSTUDY: A toolkit for developing computer-supported tutorials and researching learning strategies and instruction (version 2.0) [computer program]. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  32. Winne, P. H., Hauck, W. E., & Moore, J. W. (1975). The efficiency of implicit repetition and cognitive restructuring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 770–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D. L., & Muis, K. (2002). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: New Directions in Measures and Methods, Vol. 12 (pp. 121–155). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.Google Scholar
  35. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (p. 531–566). Orlando, Florida: Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, & Special EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations