Advertisement

A Systematic Approach to Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Learner-Generated Digital Media (LGDM) Assignments and Its Effect on Self-regulation in Tertiary Science Education

  • Jorge ReynaEmail author
  • Jose Hanham
  • Panos Vlachopoulos
  • Peter Meier
Article

Abstract

This study explored the self-regulation strategies and learning experiences of undergraduate science students completing Learner-Generated Digital Media (LGDM) assignments that had been implemented using a theory-driven, systematic approach. The rationale for using LGDM in science education is to facilitate student learning of complex scientific concepts through the multimodal representation of content using digital media. The study was conducted in seven science subjects from first to third year in Autumn 2017, using a sample of 348 undergraduate science students attending a university located in Sydney, Australia. All the participants were enrolled in subjects that required them to communicate complex scientific concepts using digital media. Training on LGDM was conducted online (n = 199) and in blended mode (n = 149). The study used a mixed-methods approach with a validated self-regulation questionnaire, LMS logs, assessment scores, group contribution data, open-ended questions, and interviews. Online students were more likely than blended students to report using self-regulation strategies for goal setting, time management, task strategies, and help-seeking. Data triangulation revealed that participation in LGDM assignments was perceived by students to contribute to their science content knowledge, provide them with digital media skills, and nurture their capacity for working in groups. The findings of this study have implications for how LGDM is deployed in science education.

Keywords

Learner-generated digital media Digital media assignments Multimedia assignments Self-regulation Science education 

Notes

References

  1. Agustiani, H., Cahyad, S., & Musa, M. (2016). Self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of students academic performance. The Open Psychology Journal, 9(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, B., Adams, S. & Cummins, M. (2016). Digital Literacy: An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. (Volume 3.3, October 2016). Retrieved August 12, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182085/.
  3. Anderson, J. (2013). Active learning through student film: a case study of cultural geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(3), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anuradha, V., & Rengaraj, M. (2017). Storytelling: creating a positive attitude toward narration among engineering graduates. IUP Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 32.Google Scholar
  5. Arvidsson, A., & Delfanti, A. (2019). Introduction to Digital Media. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bader, J. D., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Using visual design to improve the online learning experience: a synthesis of research on aesthetics. In Learner Experience and Usability in Online Education (pp. 1-35).Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  8. Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.Google Scholar
  10. Barak, M., Hussein-Farraj, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2016). On-campus or online: examining self-regulation and cognitive transfer skills in different learning settings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S.-L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bekhet, A. K., & Zauszniewski, J. A. (2012). Methodological triangulation: an approach to understanding data. Nurse Researcher, 20(2), 40–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bidjerano, T. (2005). Gender differences in self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association (36th, Kerhonkson, NY, Oct 19-21, 2005).Google Scholar
  15. Blum, M., & Barger, A. (2018). The CASPA model: an emerging approach to integrating multimodal assignments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(3), 309–321.Google Scholar
  16. Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital media literacies: Rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2,: 43–55.Google Scholar
  18. Calder, N. (2012). The layering of mathematical interpretations through digital media. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, C. S. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to information systems course. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 20(1), 11–23. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/95111/
  20. Cho, V., & Lam, W. (2017). The power of LinkedIn: will professionals leave their organizations for professional advancement because of their use of LinkedIn? PACIS 2017 Proceedings. 290. Retrieved Feb 9, 2018 from http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2017/290
  21. Chou, P.-N., & Chang, C.-C. (2018). Small or large? The effect of group size on engineering students’ learning satisfaction in project design courses. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14, 10, 3-9.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load: Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  23. Coulson, S., & Frawley, J. K. (2017). Student-generated multimedia for supporting learning in an undergraduate physiotherapy course. in H. Partridge, K. Davis, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Me! Us! IT! Proceedings ASCILITE2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education, (pp. 235–244). Toowoomba, QLD: ASCILITE.Google Scholar
  24. Dunnigan, J. E. (2018). The relationship of self-regulated learning and academic risk factors to academic performance in community college online mathematics courses (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved May 2nd, 2018 from https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/soe_etd/29/
  25. Edwards, F. (2018). The relationship between college student attitudes towards online learning based on reading self-efficacy, ethnicity, and age. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved March 7th, 2018 from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1729/
  26. Gorissen, P., Bruggen, J. V., & Jochems, W. (2013). Methodological triangulation of the students’ use of recorded lectures. International Journal of Learning Technology, 8(1), 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008.Google Scholar
  28. Henriksen, B., Henriksen, J., & Thurston, J. S. (2016). Building health literacy and cultural competency through video recording exercises. Innovations in Pharmacy, 7(4), 17.Google Scholar
  29. Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., & Shepherd, A. (2015). Student-generated digital media in science education: learning, explaining and communicating content. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobbs, R. (2017a). Create to learn: introduction to digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  31. Hobbs, R. (2017b). Measuring the digital and media literacy competencies of children and teens. In Cognitive Development in Digital Contexts (pp. 253-274). Cambridge, MA: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy in the context of online learning environments: a review of the literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3–4), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jablonski, D., Hoban, G., Ransom, H., & Ward, K. (2015). Exploring the use of “slowmation” as a pedagogical alternative in science teaching and learning. Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 27(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  34. Jamani, K. J. (2011). A semiotics discourse analysis framework: understanding meaning-making in science education contexts. Semiotics Theory and Applications, Ontario, Canada: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Jenson, J. D. (2011). Promoting self-regulation and critical reflection through writing students’ use of an electronic portfolio. International Journal of ePortfolio, 1(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1246-1252.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A Guide to Development, Analysis, and Reporting. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kaufmann, R., & Buckner, M. M. (2018). Revisiting “power in the classroom”: exploring online learning and motivation to study course content. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  39. Kearney, M. (2009). Towards a learning design for student-generated digital storytelling. Paper presented at the future of learning design conference, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia (2009). Retrieved Feb 7th, 2018 from http://ro.uow.edu.au/fld/09/Program/4/
  40. Kearney, M. (2013). Learner-generated digital video: using ideas videos in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 321–336.Google Scholar
  41. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2005). Students in the Director’s Seat: Teaching and Learning with Student-generated Video. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2864-2871). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/20518/.
  42. Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2018). Supporting student self-regulation: In a blended, flipped learning format. In Online Course Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1302-1318). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  43. Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., Bozkurt, A., & Buyuk, K. (2018). Measuring self-regulation in self-paced open and distance learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 25-42. Retrieved, Jan 12th, 2018 from  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3255.
  44. Kooloos, J. G. M., Klaassen, T., Vereijken, M., Van Kuppeveld, S., Bolhuis, S., & Vorstenbosch, M. (2011). Collaborative group work: effects of group size and assignment structure on learning gain, student satisfaction and perceived participation. Medical Teacher, 33(12), 983–988.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.588733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: the interaction of children’s achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 628–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1–16. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/49426/
  47. Manzi, C., Coen, S., Regalia, C., Yevenes, A. M., Giuliani, C., & Vignoles, V. L. (2018). Being in the social: a cross-cultural and cross-generational study on identity processes related to Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martin, J. M., & Zahrndt, J. (2017). Media and digital literacies. London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  49. McLoughlin, C., & Loch, B. (2012). Engaging students in cognitive and metacognitive processes using screencasts. Paper presented at the EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012, Denver, Colorado, USA. Retrieve May 4th, 2018 from http://www.editlib.org/p/40891.
  50. McMahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2001). Promoting self-regulation learning in an on-line environment. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of Ed-Media 2001--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1299-1305). Norfolk, VA USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8630/.
  51. Miller, D. A. (2015). Learning how students learn: an exploration of self-regulation strategies in a two-year college general chemistry class. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Musburger, R. B., & Kindem, G. (2012). Introduction to media production: the path to digital media production. Burlington: Focal Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. New South Wales Board of Studies. (2012). Science K-10 syllabus. Sydney, NSW: NSW BOS.Google Scholar
  54. Nielsen, W., Hoban, G., & Hyland, C. J. (2017). Pharmacology students’ perceptions of creating multimodal digital explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 329-339.Google Scholar
  55. Nielsen, W., Georgiou, H., Jones, P., & Turney, A. (2018). Digital Explanation as Assessment in University Science. Research in Science Education., 1-28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9785-9.
  56. Niemivirta, M. (1997). Gender differences in motivational-cognitive patterns of self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997)Google Scholar
  57. Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ottenhoff, J. (2011). Learning how to learn: metacognition in liberal education. Liberal Education, 97, 28–33.Google Scholar
  59. Pardo, A., Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2016). Exploring the relation between self-regulation, online activities, and academic performance: A case study. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 422-429). ACM.Google Scholar
  60. Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D., Michie, F., & Street, B. (2008). Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pearce, K. L. (2014). Undergraduate creators of video, animations and blended media: The students' perspective. In Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference) (p. 138).Google Scholar
  62. Pearce, K. L., & Vanderlelie, J. J. (2016a). Teaching and evaluating graduate attributes in the multimedia science-based assessment task. Paper presented at the Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  63. Pearce, K. L., & Vanderlelie, J. J. (2016b). Teaching and evaluating graduate attributes in the multimedia science-based assessment task. Paper presented at the Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  64. Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating e-learning: guiding research and practice. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: an evidence-based perspective (pp. 731–810). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrived from ERIC database. (ED338122)Google Scholar
  68. Pirhonen, J., & Rasi, P. (2017). Student-generated instructional videos facilitate learning through positive emotions. Journal of Biological Education, 51(3), 215-227.Google Scholar
  69. Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital media, culture and education: theorising third space literacies. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Powell, L., & Robson, F. (2014). Learner-generated podcasts: a useful approach to assessment? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(3), 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reyna, J. (2019). A model to explore learning processes in learner-generated digital media assignments. Paper presented at the 13th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
  72. Reyna, J., & Meier, P. (2018a). Learner-Generated Digital Media (LGDM) as an Assessment Tool in Tertiary Science Education: A Review of Literature. IAFOR Journal of Education, 6(3), 93-109.Google Scholar
  73. Reyna, J., & Meier, P. (2018b). Using the learner-generated digital media (LGDM) framework in tertiary science education: a pilot study. Education Sciences, 8(3), 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reyna, J., Meier, P., Geronimo, F., & Rodgers, K. (2016). Implementing digital media presentations as assessment tools for pharmacology students. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(14), 983–991.  https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-14-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Reyna, J., Hanham, J., & Meier, P. (2017a). A taxonomy of digital media types for learner-generated digital media assignments. E-learning and Digital Media, 14(6), 309–322.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017752973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reyna, J., Horgan, F., Ramp, D., & Meier, P. (2017b). Using learner-generated digital media (LGDM) as an assessment tool in geological sciences. Paper presented at the 11th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference, INTED2017, INTED, Valencia (Spain), 6th–8th of March 2017.Google Scholar
  77. Reyna, J., Hanham, J., & Meier, P. C. (2018a). A framework for digital media literacies for teaching and learning in higher education. E-learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reyna, J., Hanham, J., & Meier, P. (2018b). The Internet explosion, digital media principles and implications to communicate effectively in the digital space. E-learning and Digital Media, 15(1), 36–52.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018754361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reyna, J., Hanham, J., & Meier, P. (2018c). A methodological approach to evaluate the effectiveness of learner-generated digital media (LGDM) assignments in science education. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, & M. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 303–314). Amsterdam: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieve April 7th, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184211/.
  80. Reyna, J., Hanham, J., Vlachopoulos, P., & Meier, P. (2019). Using factor analysis to validate a questionnaire to explore self-regulation in learner-generated digital media (LGDM) assignments in science education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 128–152.Google Scholar
  81. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Salomon, D. (2013). Moving on from Facebook using Instagram to connect with undergraduates and engage in teaching and learning. College & Research Libraries News, 74(8), 408–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shen, C., Kasra, M., Pan, W., Bassett, G. A., Malloch, Y., & O’Brien, J. F. (2018). Fake images: the effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on the contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society, 1461444818799526.Google Scholar
  85. Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2002). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sørensen, B. H., & Levinsen, K. T. (2014). Digital production and students as learning designers. Designs for Learning, 7(1), 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Suzuki, N., Imashiro, M., Shoda, H., Ito, N., Sakata, M., & Yamamoto, M. (2018). Effects of group size on performance and member satisfaction. In: Yamamoto, S., Mori, H. (Eds.) Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information in Applications and Services, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10905, pp. 191–199. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92046-7_17
  88. Tang, K. s., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tümay, H. (2016). Emergence, learning difficulties, and misconceptions in chemistry undergraduate students’ conceptualizations of acid strength. Science & Education, 25(1–2), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., Philipsen, B., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vasilchenko, A., Green, D. P., Qarabash, H., Preston, A., Bartindale, T., & Balaam, M. (2017). Media literacy as a by-product of collaborative video production by CS students. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education.Google Scholar
  93. Virtanen, P., & Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher education students in self-regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology, 30(3), 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Twitter and society, New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  96. Wells, J., & Blincoe, M. (2015). An examination of the use of online resources in a University E-Learning environment. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 715-723). Kona, Hawaii, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/152243/.
  97. Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11(3), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8
  100. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective, Educational Psychologist, 33:2-3, 73-86.Google Scholar
  101. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. The pursuit of excellence through education, 85-110.Google Scholar
  102. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of educational Psychology, 82(1), 51.Google Scholar
  103. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49-64). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  104. Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (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 Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of ArtsMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations