Sixty-two high-school biology students, paired heterogeneously based on prior knowledge, learned about genetic using GenScope, a computer-based learning environment (CBLE), over four 90-minute class periods. Differences between low and high prior knowledge students emerged with convergence of verbal process data and pre- and post-test product data. The low prior knowledge students gained significantly in conceptual understanding from pre- to post-test, whereas the high prior knowledge students' understanding did not significantly change. In an analysis of their verbalizations, low prior knowledge students regulated their learning by relying on their partners for cognitive and other regulatory support whereas the high prior knowledge students spent most of their time regulating their own learning or providing external support for their lower prior knowledge peer. The results of this naturalistic study can potentially be used to inform educational practice by highlighting scaffolds that may foster self-regulated learning in a CBLE-mediated science inquiry context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlevenV.StahlE.SchwormS.WallaceR., & FischerF. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.
2.
AzevedoR. (in press). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist.
3.
AzevedoR., & CromleyJ. G. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.
4.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G., & SeibertD. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' prior knowledge to regulate their learning with hypermedia. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.
5.
AzevedoR.GuthrieJ. T., & SiebertD. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 87–111.
6.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.WintersF. I., & MoosD. (2004). Designing adaptive scaffolds in hypermedia to facilitate students' self-regulated learning of complex science topics. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Santa Monica, CA.
7.
AzevedoR.RaganS.CromleyJ. G., & PritchettS. (2002, April). Do different goal-setting conditions facilitate students' prior knowledge to regulate their learning of complex science topics with RiverWeb? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
8.
AzevedoR.WintersF. I., & MoosD. C. (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn science? The dynamics of self- and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 215–245.
9.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.WintersF. I.MoosD. C., & GreeneJ. A. (2005). Is adaptive scaffolding always effective in facilitating students' self-regulated learning with hypermedia?Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.
10.
AzevedoR.VeronaM. E., & CromleyJ. G. (2001). Fostering students' collaborative problem solving with RiverWeb. In MooreJ. D.RedfieldC. L., & JohnsonW. L. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-ED in the wired and wireless future (pp. 166–175). Amsterdam: IOS press.
11.
ButlerD. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 682–697.
CornoL., & RandiJ. (1999). A design theory for classroom instruction in self-regulated learning? In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. II (pp. 293–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
14.
DavisE. A., & LinnM. C. (20900). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompt for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
15.
De JongT., & van JooligenW. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
16.
DillonA., & GabbardR. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.
17.
HannafinM.LandS., & OliverK. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
HickeyD. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495–538.
19.
HoffmanJ. L.WuH. K.KrajcikJ. S., & SolowayE. (2003). The nature of middle-school learners' science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.
20.
HoganK. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.
21.
HorowitzP., & ChristieM. A. (2000). Computer-based manipulatives for teaching scientific reasoning: An example. In JacobsonM. & KozmaR. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 163–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
JacobsonM. J., & ArchodidouA. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual chance and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145–199.
23.
JacobsonM. J., & KozmaR. B. (2000). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
JonassenD., & ReevesT. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In JonassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 694–719), NY: Macmillan
25.
LajoieS. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
LajoieS. P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
LajoieS. P., & AzevedoR. (in press). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In AlexanderP.WinneP., & PhyeG. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
LinnM., & EylonB. S. (2000). Knowledge integration and displaced volume. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(4), 287–310.
McCaslinM., & GoodT. (1996). The informal curriculum. In BerlinerD. & CalfeeR. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622–670). New York: Macmillan.
31.
McCaslinM., & HickeyD. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskyian view. In ZimmermanB. J. & SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
MeyerD. K., & TurnerJ. C. (2001). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 17–25.
33.
NewmanR. S. (1998). Students' help-seeking during problem-solving: Influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 644–658.
34.
ParisS. G., & ParisA. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.
35.
PatrickH., & MiddletonM. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39.
36.
PerryN. E. (2002). Introduction: Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 1–3.
37.
PerryN. E.VandeKampK. O.MercerL. K., & NordbyC. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.
38.
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.
39.
PintrichP. & ZushoA. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In WigfieldA. & EcclesJ. S. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40.
RandiJ., & CornoL. (2002). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
41.
SchunkD. (2001). Social cognitive theory of self-regulated learning. In ZimmermanB. & SchunkD. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
ShapiroA. & NiederhauserD. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 605–620). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VyeN.SchwartzD.BransfordJ.BarronB., Zech, L., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In HackerD.DunloskyJ., & GraesserA. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
WhiteB. A., & FrederiksenJ. R. (in press). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist.
46.
WhiteB. A., & FrederiksenJ. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science more accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
47.
WhiteB. A.FrederiksenJ. R., & ShimodaT. (2000). Facilitating students' inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In LajoieS. P. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls. (Vol. II, pp. 97–132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
WhiteB. A.ShimodaT., & FrederiksenJ. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 151–182.
49.
WinneP. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In ZimmermanB. & SchunkD. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
WoltersC. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205.
