Advertisement

Variations in Self-Regulation of Learning On-Line Versus On-Campus

  • Jonathan KaplanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1011)

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a study that compared self- and co-regulation perceived strategy use of Master’s in Education students learning in two distinct learning environments. One cohort of students was studying predominantly face-to-face on-campus while the other studied predominantly on-line. Comparing the two cohorts enabled to contrast perceived regulation of learning strategy use. Subjects were postgraduate students in Educational Sciences studying in a French university during the academic year 2017–18. Data was collected using ERICA [12] which is a scale intended for measurement of six macro-level strategies of regulation of learning. The study found that two strategies differed in perceived frequency of use by students. The strategies were Individual Anticipation of materials and References (IAR) and Individual Tracking and Monitoring (ITM). Environmental conditions, instructional cues and group characteristics are discussed as potential explanations for the found similarities and differences. Future research directions are suggested to further explore the interplay between the ways students learn and environmental characteristics.

Keywords

Self-regulation Co-regulation Self-regulated learning e-Learning Anticipation Monitoring Learning environment 

References

  1. 1.
    Cleary, T.J., Callan, G.L.: Assessing self-regulated learning using microanalytic methods. In: Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (Chap. 22), pp. 338–351. Educational Psychology Handbook Series, Routledge (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (eds.): Handbook of Self-Determination Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greene, J.A., Azevedo, R.: A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their re- lations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34(1), 18–29 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond, M.: What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education? Educ. Inf. Technol. 15(3), 205–217 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9106-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A.: Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, vol. 20. George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 2 edn (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan, J.: L’autodirection dans les apprentissages coopératifs - Le cas des Cercles d’Étude [Self-Direction in Cooperative Learning - The Case of Study Circles]. Ph.D. thesis, Paris 10 University, Nanterre (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan, J.: Co-regulation in technology enhanced learning environments. In: Uden, L., Sinclair, J., Tao, Y.H., Liberona, D. (eds.) LTEC 2014. CCIS, vol. 446, pp. 72–81. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10671-7_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaplan, J.: Learning strategies and interpersonal relationships of students learning cooperatively online. In: Uden, L., Liberona, D., Feldmann, B. (eds.) LTEC 2016. CCIS, vol. 620, pp. 103–111. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42147-6_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan, J.: Coévaluation entre pairs apprenants comme échafaudage de la régu- lation du processus de l’apprentissage. Symposium: Apprentissage autorégulé et régulation des apprentissages: le rôle de l’évaluation, Les rencontres internationales du Réseau de recherche en éducation et en formation (REF 2017), CNAM, Paris, July 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan, J.: Putting to test a model of self-evaluation of the learning method in an e-learning environment. International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education (TECH-EDU 2018), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, June 2018Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaplan, J.: Les stratégies d’autorégulation collective des apprenants adultes en e-formation. In: Jézégou, A. (ed.) Traité de la e-Formation des adultes, chap. 11, pp. 263–286. De Boeck Supérieur, Louvain-la-Neuve (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan, J., de Montalembert, M., Laurent, P., Fenouillet, F.: ERICA - An in- strument to measure individual and collective regulation of learning [ERICA - Un outil pour mesurer la régulation individuelle et collective de l’apprentissage]. Euro- pean Review of Applied Psychology - Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée 67(2), 79–89 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2017.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laurent, P., Fenouillet, F., Kaplan, J., de Montalembert, M.: Apprentissage au- torégulé et fonctions exécutives. Journée d’Hiver de la Société de Neuropsychologie de Langue Française, Espace de conférence des Diaconesses, Paris (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore, M.G.: The theory of transactional distance. In: Moore, M.G. (ed.) Handbook of Distance Education, pp. 66–85. Routledge, London (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moos, D.C., Azevedo, R.: Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: the impact of conceptual scaffolds. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(4), 1686–1706 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pintrich, P.R.: The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (eds.) Handbook of Self-Regulation, pp. 451–502. Academic Press, San Diego (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2018). https://www.R-project.org/
  18. 18.
    Reeve, J., Ryan, R., Deci, E.L., Jang, H.: Understanding and promoting au- tonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (eds.) Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications, pp. 223–244. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55(1), 68–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simonian, S., Chaker, R., Kaplan, J.: Affordance en e-formation et régulation de l’apprentissage: une exploration dans un contexte d’études universitaires. Actes du Colloque e-Formation 2018, Université de Lille, Villeneuve d’Ascq, March 2018Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steffens, K.: Self-regulated leaning in technology-enhanced learning environments: lessons of a european peer review. European J. Educ. Res., Dev. Policies 41(3–4), 352–379 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winne, P.H., Perry, N.E.: Measuring self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (eds.) Handbook of Self-Regulation, pp. 531–566. Academic Press, San Diego (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zimmerman, B.J., Martinez Pons, M.: Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. Am. Educ. Res. J. 23(4), 614–628 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut des Sciences et Pratiques d’Éducation et de Formation, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Laboratoire Éducation Cultures & Politiques, (EA 4571)LyonFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Cognitions Humaine et Artificielle, Université Paris Nanterre, (EA 4004)NanterreFrance

Personalised recommendations