Researchers and educators have explored a variety of technologies to facilitate self-regulated learning (SRL). Drawing from contemporary perspectives on SRL, this paper articulates two fundamental design principles for SRL-promoting technologies: the platform principle and the support principle. This paper then discusses how usability inspection methods, such as heuristic evaluations and cognitive walkthroughs, can readily assess whether and how these needs are met. This framework can assist researchers and educators in evaluating technologies to make strategic design and implementation decisions aligned with self-regulation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhnH. S.UsherE. L.ButzA.BongM. (2016). Cultural differences in the understanding of modelling and feedback as sources of self-efficacy information. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 112-136.
2.
AlexanderP. A. (2013). Calibration: What is it and why it matters? An introduction to the special issue on calibrating calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 1-3.
3.
AlexanderP. A.GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129-154.
4.
AzevedoR. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87-95.
5.
AzevedoR.GaševićD. (2019). Analyzing multimodal multichannel data about self-regulated learning with advanced learning technologies: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 207-210.
6.
AzevedoR.HadwinA. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.
7.
AzevedoR.MoosD. C.GreeneJ. A.WintersF. I.CromleyJ. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45-72.
8.
BaarsM.VinkS.van GogT.de BruinA.PaasF. (2014). Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92-107.
9.
BannertM.SonnenbergC.MengelkampC.PiegerE. (2015). Short-and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293-306.
10.
BellandB. R. (2014). Scaffolding: definition, current debates, and future directions. In SpectorJ.MerrillM.ElenJ.BishopM. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505-518). New York, NY: Springer.
11.
Ben-EliyahuA.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2015). Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 15-42.
12.
BjorkR. A.DunloskyJ.KornellN. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
13.
BroadbentJ.PoonW. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13.
14.
CalvoR. A.D’MelloS. K. (2010). Affect detection: An interdisciplinary review of models, methods, and their applications. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 1(1), 18-37.
15.
CarmichaelD.MacEachenC. (2017). Heuristic evaluation of the use of Blackboard and Facebook Groups in computing higher education. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 6, 1-8.
16.
DavidsM. R.ChikteU.HalperinM. L. (2013). An efficient approach to improve the usability of e-learning resources: The role of heuristic evaluation. Adv. in Physiology Education, 37, 242-248.
17.
DeekensV. M.GreeneJ. A.LobczowskiN. G. (2018). Monitoring and depth of strategy use in computer-based learning environments for science and history. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 63-79.
18.
DentA. L.KoenkaA. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 425-474.
19.
DevolderA.van BraakJ.TondeurJ. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 28, 557-573.
20.
DignathC. C.BüttnerG. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students: A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231-264.
21.
DonkerA. S.de BoerH.KostonsD.Dignath van EwijkC. C.van der WerfM. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1-26.
22.
DuffyM. C.AzevedoR. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 338-348.
23.
DumasJ. S.FoxJ. E. (2009). Usability testing: Current practice and future directions. In SearsA.JackoJ. A. (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Development process (pp. 231-252). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
24.
DyckhoffA. L.ZielkeD.BültmannM.ChattiM. A.SchroederU. (2012). Design and implementation of a learning analytics toolkit for teachers. Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 58-76.
25.
FraileJ.PanaderoE.PardoR. (2017). Co-creating rubrics: The effects on self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and performance of establishing assessment criteria with students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 69-76.
26.
GaševićD.JovanovićJ.PardoA.DawsonS. (2017). Detecting learning strategies with analytics: Links with self-reported measures and academic performance. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 113-128.
27.
GómezR. Y.CaballeroD. C.SevillanoJ. (2014). Heuristic evaluation on mobile interfaces: A new checklist. Scientific World Journal, Article 434326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/434326
28.
GreeneJ. A.CostaL. J.RobertsonJ.PanY.DeekensV. M. (2010). Exploring relations among college students’ prior knowledge, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning in a hypermedia environment. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1027-1043.
29.
HartwigM. K.DunloskyJ. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(1), 126-134.
30.
HuartJ.KolskiC.SagarM. (2004). Evaluation of multimedia applications using inspection methods: the cognitive walkthrough case. Interacting with Computers, 16, 183-215.
31.
HvannbergE. T.LawE. L.LárusdóttirM. K. (2007). Heuristic evaluation: Comparing ways of finding and reporting usability problems. Interacting with Computers, 19, 225-240.
32.
International Standards Organization (ISO) (2018). ISO 9421-11:2018. Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.
33.
JosephL. M.Alber-MorganS.CullenJ.RouseC. (2016). The effects of self-questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 152-173.
34.
KarahocaD.KarahocaA. (2009). Assessing effective of the cognitive abilities and individual differences on e-learning portal usability evaluation. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 368-380.
35.
KhajoueiR.EsfahaniM. Z.JahaniY. (2017). Comparison of heuristic and cognitive walkthrough usability evaluation methods for evaluating health information systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(e1), e55-e60.
36.
KiourexidouM.NatsisK.BamidisP.AntonopoulosN.PapathanasiouE.SgantzosM.VeglisA. (2015). Augmented reality for the study of human heart anatomy. Intl. Journal of Electronics Communication & Computer Eng., 6(6), 658-663.
37.
KizilcecR. F.Pérez-SanagustínM.MaldonadoJ. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers and Education, 104, 18-33.
38.
KortumP.SorberM. (2015). Measuring the usability of mobile applications for phones and tablets. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31, 518-529.
39.
KostonsD.van GogT.PaasF. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121-132.
40.
LeeH. W.LimK. Y.GrabowskiB. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629-648.
41.
LimC.SongH.LeeY. (2012). Improving the usability of the user interface for a digital textbook platform for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 159-173.
42.
LittlejohnA.HoodN.MilliganC.MustainP. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48.
43.
MahatodyT.SagarM.KolskiC. (2010). State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(8), 741-785.
44.
MargaryanA.LittlejohnA.MilliganC. (2013). Self-regulated learning in workplace: Strategies and factors in the attainment of learning goals. International Journal of Training and Development, 17(4), 245-259.
45.
MavrikisM.Gutierrez-SantosS. (2010). Not all wizards are from Oz: Iterative design of intelligent learning environments by communication capacity tapering. Computers and Education, 54(3), 641-651.
46.
McCardleL.WebsterE. A.HaffeyA.HadwinA. F. (2017). Examining students’ self-set goals for self-regulated learning: Goal properties and patterns. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2153-2169.
47.
MehlenbacherB.BennettL.BirdT.IveyM.LucasJ.MortonJ.WhitmanL. (2005). Usable e-learning: A conceptual model for evaluation and design. In OppermannR.EisenhauerM.JarkeM.WulfV. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: ACM.
48.
Miller-CochranS. K.RodrigoR. L. (2006). Determining effective distance learning designs through usability testing. Computers and Composition, 23, 91-107.
49.
MüllerN. M.SeufertT. (2018). Effects of self-regulation prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and self-efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 58, 1-11.
50.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulatd learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
51.
NielsenJ.BudiuR. (2013). Mobile usability. San Francisco, CA: New Riders Press.
52.
PanaderoE. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 422.
53.
PanaderoE.JonssonA.BotellaJ. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74-98.
54.
PolsonP. G.LewisC.RiemanJ.WhartonC. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. I Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 741-773.
55.
ReeveJ.RyanR.DeciE. L.JangH. (2008). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 223-244) New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
RodriguezF.KataokaS.RivasM. J.KadandaleP.NiliA.WarschauerM. (2018). Do spacing and self-testing predict learning outcomes?Active Learning in Higher Education. DOI: doi.org/10.1177/1469787418774185
57.
RollI.BakerR.AlevenV.KoedingerK. R. (2014). On the benefits of seeking (and avoiding) help in online problem-solving environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 537-560.
58.
RollI.WinneP. H. (2015). Understanding, evaluating, and supporting self-regulated learning using learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 7-12.
ShaL.LooiC.-K.ZhangB. H. (2012). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of self-regulated learning. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 28, 366-378.
61.
SiadatyM.GaševićD.HatalaM. (2016). Associations between technological scaffolding and micro-level processes of self-regulated learning: A workplace study. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1007-1019.
62.
SmitK.de BrabanderC. J.BoekaertsM.MartensR. L. (2017). The self-regulation of motivation: Motivational strategies as mediator between motivational beliefs and engagement for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 124-134.
63.
SpannC. A.ShuteV. J.RahimiS.D’Mello.S. K. (2019). The productive role of cognitive reappraisal in regulating affect during game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior. Available online. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.002
64.
StoofA.MartensR. L.MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2007). Web-based support for constructing competence maps: Design and formative evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 347-368.
65.
TabuencaB.KalzM.DrachslerH.SpechtM. (2015). Time will tell: The role of mobile learning analytics in self-regulated learning. Computers and Education, 89, 53-74.
66.
TanJ. L.GohD. H.AngR. P.HuanV. S. (2013). Participatory evaluation of an educational game for social skills acquisition. Computers and Education, 64, 70-80.
67.
van MeeuwenL. W.Brand-GruwelS.KirschnerP. A.de BockJ. J. P. R.van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2018). Fostering self-regulation in training complex cognitive tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 53-73.
68.
WalravenA.Brand-GruwelS.BoshuizenH. P. A. (2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behavior while searching the Internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125-146.
69.
WinneP. H. (2018). Theorizing and researching levels of processing in self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 9-20.
70.
WinneP. H.BakerR. S. J. d. (2013). The potentials of educational data mining for researching metacognition, motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 5(1), 1-8.
71.
WinneP. H.HadwinA. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
72.
WintersF. I.GreeneJ. A.CostichC. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429-444.
73.
WongJ.BaarsM.DavisD.Van Der ZeeT.HoubenG.PaasF. (2019). Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environments and MOOCs: A systematic review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(4-5), 356-373.
74.
ZahariasP.KoutsabasisP. (2012). Heuristic evaluation of e-learning courses: A comparative analysis of two e-learning heuristic sets. Campus-wide Information Systems, 29(1), 45-60.
75.
ZahariasP.PoulymenakouA. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75-98.
76.
ZepedaC. D.RicheyJ. E.RonevichP.Nokes-MalachT. J. (2015). Direct instruction of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 954-970.
77.
ZhangD.AdipatB. (2005). Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18(3), 293-308.
