Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We collected think-aloud, pre-test, post-test, and motivation data from 43 undergraduates to examine the impact of conceptual scaffolds on the fluctuation of certain motivation constructs and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Participants were randomly assigned to either the No Scaffolding (NS) or Conceptual Scaffolding (CS) condition. During the experimental session, each participant individually completed a pre-test on the circulatory system, a pre-task motivation questionnaire, one 30-min hypermedia learning task during which they learned about the circulatory system, a motivation questionnaire at three regular intervals during this learning task, a post-test on the circulatory system, and a post-task motivation questionnaire. Results indicated that while participants in both conditions gained declarative knowledge, participants who received conceptual scaffolds during learning demonstrated deeper understanding of the circulatory system on the post-test. In terms of self-regulatory processes, the results indicated that participants in the CS condition used significantly more planning processes during learning than participants in the NS condition. Additionally, participants in both conditions significantly decreased their use of strategies as they progressed through the learning task. Regarding motivation while learning with hypermedia, results indicated that participants in both conditions reported significantly increased levels of interest as they progressed through the learning task. Furthermore, participants in the CS condition reported the task as being easier and putting forth less effort than participants in the NS condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data from six participants was not included in the SRL data analysis due to incomplete measures (CS = 19; NS = 18)

  2. As a validity check of the post-test measures, a one-way ANOVA was used, with post-test mental models (low, intermediate, and high) as the between-subjects factor and post-test matching scores as a within subjects factor. Significant differences were found, F (2, 36) = 9.701, p < .001. A post-hoc Scheffé test showed that the participants who had a high mental model at post-test had a significantly higher post-test matching score (M matching score = 11.43) than both participants who had an intermediate mental model at post-test (M matching score = 8.70; p = .018), and participants who had a low mental model at post-test (M matching score = 6.50; p = .003).

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environment as metacogntive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004a). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004b). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Winters, F. I., & Moos, D. C. (2004c). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to lean about science? The dynamics of self- and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 215–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1994). Regulative function of perceived self-efficacy. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker, & J. H. Harris (Eds.) Personnel selection and classification (pp. 261–271). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergin, D. A., Ford, M. E., & Hess, R. D. (1993). Patterns of motivation and social behavior associated with microcomputer use of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (2002). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students’ context sensitivity. New Directions in Measures and Methods, 12, 77–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry S., & Lajoie S. (Eds.) (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1994). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Edcuational Psychologist, 38(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iStart. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S., & Ackerman, J. M. (1995). Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rhetorical perspective on literacy research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 65, 383–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B., & Land, S. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in resource-based learning environments involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Boutara, L., & Knoetze, T. (2004). Cross-case study of self-regulated learning as a series of events. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(4–6), 365–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundation, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Hartley, J., & Sydes, M. (1997). Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading, 20(2), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holladay, C. L., & Quiñones, M. A. (2003). Practice variability and transfer of training: The role of self-efficacy generality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1094–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (1986). The effects of learner-generated versus text-provided headings on immediate and delayed recall and comprehension: An exploratory study. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research & Application, 5(3), 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with Technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 694–719). NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R. (2001). Cognitive tutors as modeling tools and instructional models. In K. D.Forbus, & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.). Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 145–167). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie S. P. (Ed.) (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Cognitive tools for the mind: The promises of technology-cognitive amplifiers or bionic prosthetics? In R. Sternberg, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander, & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S., & Greene, B. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(3), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gutner, J. L. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M., & Wolverton, M. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In J. Aranson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 135–158). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 501–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on nature of question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1994). Visual aids to knowledge construction: Building mental representations from pictures and words. In W. Schnotz, & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 125–138). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning environments: The case for evidence-based practice and issue-driven research. Educational Psychologist, 40, 257–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 508–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). The role of goal structure in undergraduates’ use of self-regulatory variables in two hypermedia learning tasks. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(1), 49–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. P., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge form text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic domains. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., & Mercer, L. K. (2000). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, T. L. (1993). Characteristics of ego- and task-orientated students: A comparison of two methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. (1999). The relevance of hierarchies to learning biology from hypertext. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 215–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. (2000). The effects of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(1), 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, J. G., Kuerbis, P., & Kelley, G. J. (2006). Children’s ideas about the solar system and the chaos in learning sciences. Science Education, 90(1), 124–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V., & Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 570–600). NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. (1996). Student control and instructional technologies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., & Wood, E. (1994). Elaborative interrogation examined at encoding and retrieval. Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2005). Key issues in modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 232–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2003). Self-regulating studying by objectives for learning: Students’ reports compared to a model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1–37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., & Tsikalas, K. (2005). Computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by a departmental doctoral fellowship from the University of Maryland awarded to the first author and by funding from the National Science Foundation (Early Career Grant REC#0133346 and REC#0633918) awarded to the second author. The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Jeffery Greene, Fielding Winters, and Jennifer Cromley for their feedback on the data analysis and assistance with the construction of the learning task questions. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and critical feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Gustavus Adolphus College, Mattson Hall, 800 West College Avenue, Saint Peter, MN, 56082, USA

    Daniel C. Moos

  2. Department of Psychology, Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis, 3693 Norriswood Ave., Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    Roger Azevedo

Authors
  1. Daniel C. Moos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Azevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel C. Moos.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix A Classes, descriptions and examples of variables used to code participants’ use of self-regulatory processes (based on Azevedo et al. 2005)
Full size table
Appendix B Example of Coded transcript
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moos, D.C., Azevedo, R. Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instr Sci 36, 203–231 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9028-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9028-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation