Support Device Usage

  • Geraldine Clarebout
  • Jan Elen
  • Lai Jiang
  • Griet Lust
  • Norma A. Juarez Collazo
Chapter

Abstract

Learning environments typically confront learners with a number of support devices. These support devices aim at helping learners in their learning; they provide a learning opportunity. As suggested by Perkins (Educational Researcher 14:11–17, 1985), it can be assumed that in order for these support devices to be beneficial (1) the opportunity has to be there, i.e., the support device has to be functional; (2) the learners have to recognize this opportunity, and (3) the learners have to be motivated to use the opportunity or the support device.

Given that the use of the devices may strongly affect the effectiveness of learning environments and that usage seems to be problematic (Clarebout & Elen, Computers in Human Behavior 22:389–411, 2006), usage is a key issue for instructional design. This chapter reviews recent research on the impact of different learner variables on support device usage. First the functionalities and categorization of support devices is discussed, followed by an overview of different learner variables and their effect on support device usage. Next, the interactions between these learner variables and specific support device characteristics are discussed. In conclusion current issues with respect to research on support device usage are discussed and possible solutions to encourage support device usage are introduced.

Keywords

Support devices Support device usage Learning opportunity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek—Vlaanderen (FWO) grant G.0408.09 that provided the opportunity to write this chapter.

References

  1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 101–128.Google Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73, 277–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–319.Google Scholar
  4. Arbreton, A. (1998). Student goal orientation and help-seeking strategy use. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 95–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bera, S., & Liu, M. (2006). Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrier, C., Davidson, G., & Williams, M. (1985). The selection of instructional options in a computer-based co-ordinate concept lesson. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33, 199–212.Google Scholar
  8. Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies with learner-controlled CALL. Calico Journal, 7(2), 25–47.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  10. *Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 389–411.Google Scholar
  11. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2008). Tool use in open learning environments: In search of learner-related determinants. Learning Environments Research, 11(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009). The complexity of tool use in computer-based learning environments. Instructional Science, 37(5), 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Elen, J., & Schnotz, W. (2010). Compensation mechanisms when interacting with learning aids. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 119–128.Google Scholar
  14. Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Schnotz, W., & Elen, J. (2010). The relation between self-regulation and the embedding of support devices in learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. *Clark, R. E. (1990). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathentics. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), European research in an international context: Learning and instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 1–22). Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results. A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.Google Scholar
  17. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 392–431.Google Scholar
  18. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2006). The use of instructional interventions: Learn learning environments as a solution for a design problem. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 185–200). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Elen, J., & Louw, L. P. (2006). The instructional functionality of multiple adjunct aids. E-journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  20. Elen, J., Lowyck, J., & Proost, K. (1996). Design of telematic learning environments: A cognitive mediational view. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elshout, J. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Van Hall, J. G. (1993). Using the computer as a help tool during learning by doing. Computers in Education, 21(1–2), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, F., Troendle, P., & Mandl, H. (2003). Using the internet to improve university education: Problem-oriented web-based learning with MUNICS. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(3), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fournier, H., Kop, R., & Sitlia, H. (2011, March). The value of learning analytics to networked learning on a personal environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Banff, Alberta.Google Scholar
  25. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Gräsel, C., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2001). The use of additional information in problem-oriented learning environments. Learning Environment Research, 3, 287–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007, April). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the development of sophisticated mental models. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  28. Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Horz, H., Winter, C., & Fries, S. (2009). Differential benefits of situated instructional prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 818–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoskins, S. L., & van Hooff, J. C. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huet, N., Escribe, C., Dupeyrat, C., & Sakdavong, J.-C. (2011). The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of online help on its actual use in an interactive learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 413–420. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iiyoshi, T., & Hannafin, M. J. (1998, April). Cognitive tools for open-ended learning environments: Theoretical and implementation perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Jiang, L., & Elen, J. (2011). Why do learning goals (not) work: A reexamination of the hypothesized effectiveness of learning goals based on students’ behaviour and cognitive processes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jiang, L., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2009). The relationship between learner variables, tool-usage behavior and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1985). The technology of text. Volume 2: Principles for structuring, designing and displaying text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, Y. B., & Lehamn, J. D. (1993). Instructional cueing in hypermedia: A study with active and passive learners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2, 25–37.Google Scholar
  38. Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers in Education, 49, 1066–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu, M., Horton, L. R., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., Bogard, T., Kim, J., et al. (2009). Students’ problem solving as mediated by their cognitive tool use: A study of tool use patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowyck, J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2004). Instructional conceptions: Analysis from an instructional design perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lust, G., Vandewaetere, M., Ceulemans, E., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Tool-use in a blended undergraduate course: In search of user profiles. Computers in Education, 57(3), 2135–2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marek, P., Griggs, R. A., & Christopher, A. N. (1999). Pedagogical aids in textbooks: Do students’ perceptions justify their prevalence? Teaching of Psychology, 26, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martens, R. L., Valcke, M., & Portier, S. J. (1997). Interactive learning environments to support independent learning: The impact of discernability of embedded support devices. Computers in Education, 28, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of the current status (pp. 279–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newman, R. (1998). Adaptive help seeking: A role of social interaction in self-regulated learning. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 13–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Nutta, J. W. (2001). Course web sites: are they worth the effort? NEA Higher Education Advocate, 18(3), 5–8.Google Scholar
  50. *Perkins, D. N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14, 11–17.Google Scholar
  51. Portier, S., & van Buuren, H. A. (1995). An interactive learning environment (ILE) to study statistics: Effects of prior knowledge on the use of embedded support devices. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5(2), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rey, G. D., & Buchwald, F. (2011). The expertise reversal effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rowe, D. W. (1986). Does research support the use of purpose questions on reading-comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the classroom: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. *Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “though”. The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.Google Scholar
  58. Sarfo, F. K., & Elen, J. (2007). The moderating effect of instructional conceptions on the effect of powerful learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(2), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saye, J., & Brush, T. A. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schnotz, W., Picard, E., & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners use text and graphics? Learning and Instruction, 3, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tella, A., Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O., & Ogie, R. O. (2007). Self-efficacy and use of electronic information as predictors of academic performance. Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(2). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/tella_a01.html.
  62. Vermunt, J. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs: Naar procesgerichte instructive en zelfstandig denken [Learnng style and coaching learning processes in Higher Education]. Lisse, NL: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  63. Viau, R., & Larivée, J. (1993). Learning tools with hypertext: An experiment. Computers in Education, 20, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waldman, M. (2003). Freshmen’s use of library electronic resources and self-efficacy. Information Research, 8(2). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.informationr.net/ir/8-2/paper150.html.
  66. Weiss, P. L., Schreure, N., Jermias-Cohen, T., & Josman, N. (2004). An online learning course in Ergonomics. Work, 23, 95–104.Google Scholar
  67. Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winne, P. H. (1985). Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements. The Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 673–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winne, P. H. (1987). Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 466–488.Google Scholar
  71. *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
  72. Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. A. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wood, H., & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers in Education, 33, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geraldine Clarebout
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Elen
    • 3
  • Lai Jiang
    • 4
  • Griet Lust
    • 3
  • Norma A. Juarez Collazo
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Medical Education, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.CIP&T, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Center for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Institute of Tropical MedicineAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations