Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 225–242 | Cite as

Flipping the Classroom: Embedding Self-Regulated Learning Prompts in Videos

  • Daniel C. MoosEmail author
  • Caitlin Bonde
Article

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of embedding self-regulated learning (SRL) prompts in a video designed for the flipped class model. The sample included 32 undergraduate participants who were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: control (video) or experimental (video + SRL prompts). Prior knowledge was measured with a pre-test, SRL was measured with a concurrent think-aloud, and learning outcomes were measured with a posttest. Results indicated that monitoring of understanding was significantly related to pausing and restarting the video during the learning task. Additionally, participants who receive the embedded prompts in the video engaged in more SRL processes (e.g., activating prior knowledge, monitoring understanding and controlling the video). Furthermore, the embedded prompts enhanced instructional efficiency, as evidenced by the significant difference in learning outcomes and non-significant difference in mental effort.

Keywords

Hypermedia Flipped classrooms Self-regulated learning Metacognition Think-aloud 

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1987). Methodologies for studying human knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 467–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2008). The role of self-regulation in learning about science with hypermedia. In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 127–156). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, methodological, and analytical challenges in the research on metacognition and self-regulation: A commentary. Metacognition & Learning, 4, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of self-and socially-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle 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., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Harley, J., & Trevors, G. (2012). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered leaning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of student-center learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 171–197). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Computers, cognition, and collaboration in education (pp. 225–247). Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Chauncey, A., Burkett, C., & Fike, A. (2009). MetaTutor: A metacognitive tool for enhancing self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Cognitive and metacognitive educational systems: AAAI Fall Symposium.Google Scholar
  9. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Read every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  12. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cleary, T. J., & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the correspondence between self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A case study analysis. Education Research International.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Azevedo, R., Legowski, E., Reitmeyer, K., Tseytlin, E., & Crowley, R. S. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolds improve self-judgments of accuracy in a medical intelligent tutoring system. Instructional Science, 42(2), 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hashmi, A. H., & Shih, C. W. (2013). The Harvard classroom, digitized. The Harvard Crimson, 1. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/10/31/harvard-classroom-virtual-learning.
  23. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.Google Scholar
  24. Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2011). Metacognitive prompts and mental multiplication: Analyzing strategies with a qualitative lens. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(4), 607–635.Google Scholar
  25. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, A., Azevedo, R., & D’Mello, S. (2011). The temporal and dynamic nature of self-regulatory processes during independent and externally assisted hypermedia learning. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T., & Griffin, L. M. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(9). doi: 10.5688/ajpe779196.
  30. Moos, D. C. (2011). Self-regulated learning and externally generated feedback with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 261–294.Google Scholar
  31. Moos, D. C. (2013). Hypermedia learning: Considering cognitive load and self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(1), 39–61.Google Scholar
  32. Moos, D. C. (2014). Setting the stage for metacognition during hypermedia learning: What motivation constructs matter? Computers & Education, 70, 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moos, D. C., & Stewart, C. (2013). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: Bringing motivation into the conversation. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 683–697). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of students’ self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P., Smith, D.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). The manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Technical Report No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education.Google Scholar
  41. Pintrich, P., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salomon, G. (1984). Computers in education: Setting a research agenda. Educational Technology, 24, 7–11.Google Scholar
  43. Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learning. In S. L. Christensons, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Self-regulation and learning. In W. M. Reynolds, G. E. Miller, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (educational psychology) (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 45–68). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Shapiro, A. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, J. D. (2013). Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 14(4), 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1/2), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tuysuzoglu, B. B., & Greene, J. A. (2015). An investigation of the role of contingent behavior in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction. Learning and Instruction, 19, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vukman, K. B. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition and their connections with cognitive development in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 12(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI user’s manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Winne, P. (2005). Key issues on modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. 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 (pp. 259–277). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. 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). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wirth, J. (2009). Prompting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705–722). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationGustavus Adolphus CollegeSaint PeterUSA

Personalised recommendations