Computer Use in a Primary School: A Case-Study of Self-Regulated Learning



The notion of self-regulated learning (SRL) has been defined as the degree to which students are metacognitively, motivationally and behaviourally active participants in their own learning process. The objective of the present study was to explore the features of a computer-supported learning environment in primary school, with focus on metacognition, motivation, and behaviour. The data consisted of participant observations and interviews, collected within a 3-year case study of a computer project in a Swedish primary school. A content analysis of the data revealed 12 sub-themes; the sub-themes for metacognition were awareness of the processes in the learning environment, self-monitoring of the working process, planning, awareness of the relations between different leaning activities, and finally no benefit from the computer. For motivation the sub-themes were positive affect, negative affect, opportunities for choice making, work eagerness, and teacher demands. Finally, for behaviour the sub-themes were helpfulness and involvement.


Negative Affect Primary School Learning Environment Group Interview Participant Observation 
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.



We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer and especially Professor Anastasia Efklides for their insightful and helpful comments on this chapter. We would also like to thank Professor Stefan Samuelsson, and Assistant Professors Anna-Lena Eriksson-Gustafsson and Ulla-Britt Persson, Linköping University, for their valuable comments on previous versions of this paper.

The order of the authors is arbitrary, equal responsibility is assumed.


  1. Alexandersson, M., Linderoth, J., & Lindö, R. (2000). Dra den dit och lägg den där! En studie om barns möten med datorn i skolan [Move it over there and put it there! A study about children’s encounters with the computer in school] (IPD-rapporter No. 2000:15, Institutionen för Pedagogik och Didaktik). Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, J-Q., & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early childhood classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes, skills and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colnerud, G. (1999). Beyond the rhetorical curtains. Moral messages hidden in current trends. Paper presented at the 9th International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT) Conference, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  7. Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science, 3, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denis, B., & Hubert, S. (2001). Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in Human Behaviour, 17, 465– 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dermizaki, I., Leondari, A., & Goudas, M. (2009). Relations between young students’ strategic behaviours, domain-specific self-concept, and performance in a problem-solving situation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychological Review, 20, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Lillington, NC: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  13. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enochsson, A. (2004). Internet seeking and motivation for learning to read. Learning for Innovation in Technology Education, TERC2004, 1, 178–188.Google Scholar
  16. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folkesson, A.-M. (2004). Datorn i det dialogiska klassrummet [The computer in the dialogical classroom]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  18. Folkesson, A.-M., & Swalander, L. (2007). Self-regulated learning through writing on computers: Consequences for reading comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2488–2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and Education, 51, 1499–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kusunoki, F., Sugimoto, M., & Hashizume, H. (2002). A group learning support system enhancing the externalization of thinking. System and Computers in Japan, 33, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (2009). Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL-programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit? Computers & Education, 52, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F., Lopez, X., Rodriguez, P., & Salinas, M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riis, U. (1991). Skolan, och datorn. Satsningen Datorn som pedagogiskt hjälpmedel 1988–1991 [The school and the computer. The realization of the computer as a pedagogical tool 1988–1991] (Tema T Rapport 24). Linköping, Sweden: Linköpings Universitet.Google Scholar
  32. Roschelle, J., & Teasly, S.D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54– 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: An organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 701–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction – What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salovaara, H., & Järvelä, S. (2003). Students’ strategic actions in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environment Research, 6, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.Google Scholar
  38. Schraw, G. (2007). The use of computer-based environment for understanding and improving self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skolverket. (1998a). Skolverkets rapport 160, Nationella kvalitetsgranskningar. 1998 [National Agency for Education report 160, National Assessment of Quality of Schools. 1998]. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  40. Skolverket. (1998b). Verktyg som förändrar. En rapport om 48 skolors arbete med IT i undervisningen [Tools that make a difference. A report from 48 schools on using IT in education]. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  41. Somekh, B. (1991). Pupil autonomy in learning with microcomputers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waite, S. (2004) Tools for the job: A report of two surveys of information and communications technology training and use for literacy in primary schools in the West of England. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watts, M., & Lloyd, C., (2004). The use of innovative ICT in the active pursuit of literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pino Pasternak, D., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkinson, S. (2003). Focus group. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 184–204). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Winne, P. H. (2004). Comments on motivation in real-life, dynamic, and interactive learning environments. European Psychologist, 9, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–565). Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  51. Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychological Review, 20, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wittwer, J., & Senkweil, M. (2008). Is students’ computer use at home related to their mathematical performance at school? Computers and Education, 50, 1558–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Education Technology Research Development, 55, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human SciencesKalmar UniversityKalmarSweden
  2. 2.Department of Behavioural Sciences and LearningLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations