A Two-Tiered Approach to Analyzing Self-Regulated Learning Data to Inform the Design of Hypermedia Learning Environments

  • Jeffrey A. Greene
  • Kristin R. Dellinger
  • Banu Binbaşaran Tüysüzoğlu
  • Lara-Jeane Costa
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


The research shows that the lack of instructional scaffolding and high degree of user control inherent to most HLEs make them difficult learning environments for learners who lack the ability to appropriately self-regulate their learning. Therefore, developers of HLEs must construct these environments in ways that not only promote knowledge acquisition, but also foster and scaffold SRL skills. This chapter introduces a two-tiered (i.e., the micro- and macro- level) approach to analyzing SRL data derived from think aloud protocols, which can be informative in terms of the domain-, task-specific self-regulatory processes that should be scaffolded in particular HLEs. The two-tiered approach provides a bridge between the SRL data and theory by showing how the micro-level learning processes (e.g., judgments of learning) can be used to indicate the degree to which individuals engage in the macro-level categories of self-regulation discussed in SRL models. Findings from a number of our research studies illustrate how analyzing data at both tiers results in a comprehensive understanding of how learners self-regulate in HLEs, and how the nature and quality of that self-regulation interacts with internal and external conditions.


Conceptual Understanding High Prior Knowledge Proximal Goal Deep Conceptual Understanding Significant Learning Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonenko, P. D., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2010). The influence of leads on cognitive load and learning in a hypertext environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ ­conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning? Metacognition and Learning, 3, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, R. R. Hoffman, & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of sophisticated mental models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., & Robertson, J. (2010). Fostering historical knowledge and thinking skills using hypermedia learning environments: The role of self-regulated learning. Computers in Education, 54, 230–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene, J. A., Costa, L-J., & Dellinger, K. (2011). Analysis of self-regulated learning processing using statistical models for count data. Metacognition & Learning, 6, 275–301. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9078-4.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, J. A., Costa, L. C., Robertson, J., Pan, Y., & Deekens, V. (2010). Exploring relations among college students’ prior knowledge, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Education, 55, 1027–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., Azevedo, R., & Winters, F. I. (2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers in Education, 50, 1069–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, J. A., Robertson, J., & Costa, L.-J. C. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using think-aloud protocol methods. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 313–328). New York: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobson, M., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobson, M. J., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: Theoretical, empirical, and design issues. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Microsoft Corporation. (2007). Encarta Premium. [Computer Software]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  33. Shapiro, A. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veenman, M. (2007). The assessment and instruction of self-regulation in computer-based environments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Groen, M. G. M. (1993). Thinking aloud: Does it affect regulatory processes in learning. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 18, 322–330.Google Scholar
  36. Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J., & Verheij, J. (2003). Learning styles: Self-reports versus thinking-aloud measures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.Google Scholar
  40. Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D., & 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, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  41. 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). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey A. Greene
    • 1
  • Kristin R. Dellinger
    • 1
  • Banu Binbaşaran Tüysüzoğlu
    • 1
  • Lara-Jeane Costa
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Psychology, Measurement, and Evaluation ProgramUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations