This article describes the development of a technology-enhanced self-regulated learning (Te-SRL) environment designed to foster students’ SRL of complex science topics. The environment consists of three components, one of which is a specially designed computerized system that offers students a choice between different types of scaffolding and encourages them to make multiple choices regarding the paths that they take when planning their learning. We describe a three-year mixed-methods study aimed at observing learners’ use of SRL processes when learning in the Te-SRL environment. This article focuses on nine case studies that were selected from 630 seventh-grade students who participated in the study. Data were obtained from assessment tasks, self-evaluation forms, think-aloud protocols, and interviews; data were traced from the computerized system. The findings suggest that students can improve over time in regulating their learning and in utilizing learning skills in a computerized system when provided with opportunities to practice, along with scaffolding. Many students, however, did not take full advantage of these scaffolding opportunities and seemed to lack the high-level skills needed for seeking information on the Internet. These findings underscore the importance of developing a culture of learning with technology-enhanced learning environments and scaffolding SRL in such environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlevenV., StahlE., SchwormS., FischerF., & WallaceR. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.
2.
AlexanderR. J. (2002, April). Dichotomous pedagogies and the promise of comparative research. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
3.
AzevedoR., & AlevenV. (2013). International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. New York, NY: Springer.
4.
AzevedoR., & CromleyJ. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students?Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.
5.
AzevedoR., VeronaM. E., & CromleyJ. G. (2001). Fostering students’ collaborative problem solving with RiverWeb. In MooreJ., RedfieldC., & JohnsonW. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-ED in the wired and wireless future (pp. 166–175). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
6.
BaileyA., & HeritageM. (2014). The role of language learning progressions in improved instruction and assessment of English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 480–506.
7.
BarrieS. C. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 439–458.
8.
BeethamH., & SharpeR. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
BeishuizenJ. (2008). Does a community of learners foster self regulated learning?Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 183–193.
10.
BennettN., DunneE., & CarreD. H. (1999). Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education. Higher Education, 37(1), 71–93.
11.
Berglas-ShapiroT. (2015). Learning and instruction of science contents and representational skills in a technology-enhanced environment designed to support self-regulated learning (SRL) in junior high school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
12.
Berglas-ShapiroT., EylonB. S., & ScherzZ. (2013). Explicit instruction of learning skills for science embedded in physics learning materials. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 2253–2258) Valencia, Spain: IATED Publications.
13.
BernackiM. L., AguilarA. C., & ByrnesJ. P. (2011). Self-regulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments: an opportunity-propensity analysis. In DettoriG., & PersicoD. (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 1–26). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-61692-901-5.ch001
14.
BrushT., & SayeJ. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds in a technology-enhanced student-centered learning activity. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333–356.
15.
BybeeR. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221.
16.
CampbellB., KaundaL., AllieS., BufferA., & LubbenF. (2000). The communication of laboratory investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 839–853.
17.
CarneiroR., SteffensK., & UnderwoodJ. (2005, September). Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments. Proceedings of the TACONET Conference in Lisbon. Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
18.
ChipmanS. F., & SegalJ. W. (1985). Higher cognitive goals for education: An introduction. In SegalJ.W., ChipmanS.F., & GlaserR. (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to research (Vol. 1, pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
DettoriG. (2008). Narrative learning environments. In CartelliA., & PalmaM. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information communication technology (Vol. 2, pp. 576–583). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
20.
FacerK. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. London, England: Routledge.
21.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
22.
GreeneJ. A., DellingerK. R., Tüysüzo luB., & CostaL. (2013). A two-tiered approach to analyzing self-regulated learning data to inform the design of hypermedia learning environments. In AzevedoR., & AlevenV. (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 117–128). New York, NY: Springer.
23.
GreiffS., WüstenbergS., GoetzT., VainikainenM.-P., HautamäkiJ., & BornsteinM. H. (2015). A longitudinal study of higher-order thinking skills: Working memory and fluid reasoning in childhood enhance complex problem solving in adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1060. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01060
24.
HackerD. J. (1998). Metacognition: Definitions and empirical foundations. In HackerD.J., DunloskyJ., & GraesserA.C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
HillJ. R., & HannafinM. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37–64.
26.
JonassenD. H., & ReevesT. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In JonassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY: Macmillan.
27.
LajoieS. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In LajoieS.P., & DerryS. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
LandS. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.
29.
LandS., & GreeneB. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.
30.
LinnenbrinkE., & PintrichP. (2010). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137. doi:10.1080/10573560308223
PintrichP. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM., PintrichP., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34.
PintrichP. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
35.
PintrichP. R., SmithD., GarciaT., & MckeachieW. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational Psychology, 53, 801–813.
36.
SäljöR. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64.
37.
ScherzZ., MichmanM., & TamirP. (1986). Attitudes of university candidates towards learning activities aimed at preparation for science studies. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 183–194.
38.
ScherzZ., Spektor-LevyO., & EylonB. (2005). “Scientific Communication”: An instructional program for high-order learning skills and its impact on students’ performance. In BoersmaK., GoedhartM., de-JongO., & EijkelhofH. (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 231–243). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3673-6
SomerenM., BarnardY., & SandbergJ. (1994). The think-aloud method. A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London, England: Academic Press.
43.
Spektor-LevyO., EylonB., & ScherzZ. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference?International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 875–903. doi:10.1007/s10763-009-9150-6
44.
SteffensK. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: Lessons of a European peer review. European Journal of Education, 41(3–4), 353–379.
45.
StoneE. (2014). Guiding students to develop an understanding of scientific inquiry: A science skills approach to instruction and assessment. Cell Biology Education, 13(1), 90–101.
46.
StrakaG. A., NennigerP., SpevacekG., & WosnitzaM. (1996). A model for motivated self-directed learning. Education, 53, 19–30.
47.
TrillingB., & FadelC. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
WanderaD. B. (2014). The threat of obsolescence: Teaching and learning responding to technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(2), 279–281.
49.
WaringM., & EvansC. (2015). Understanding pedagogy: Developing a critical approach to teaching and learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
WayJ., & RoweL. (2008, July). The role of scaffolding in learning design of multimedia learning objects. Paper presented at 11th International Congress on Mathematics Education, Monterrey, Mexico.
51.
WeinsteinC. E., SchulteA., & PalmerD. R. (1987). The learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
52.
WhiteB., ShimodaT., & FrederiksenJ. (2000). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning with SCI-WISE: An approach to facilitating meta-cognitive development. In LajoieS. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools, Volume Two: No more walls (pp. 97–132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53.
ZimmermanB. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.
54.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In BoekaertsM., PintrichP.R., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self–regulation: Theory research, and applications (pp. 13–29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
55.
ZimmermanB. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In ZimmermanB., & SchunkD. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56.
ZimmermanB. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–72.
