This study examined 148 adolescents' use of self-regulated learning (SRL) processes when learning about the circulatory system using hypermedia. We examined participants' verbal protocols to determine the relationship between SRL processes and qualitative shifts in students' mental models from pretest to posttest. Results indicated that participants who exhibited a qualitative shift displayed differential use of six SRL processes, including metacognitive monitoring activities, learning strategies, and indications of task difficulty. We propose that these SRL processes can account for the participants' shift in mental model. Implications for the design of hypermedia learning environments are presented, including substantive recommendations for the use of trace logs and scaffolding to promote self-regulated learning with hypermedia.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzevedoR. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Computers as MetaCognitive tools to enhance learning?Instructional Science, 30(1), 31–45.
2.
AzevedoR. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 193–197.
3.
AzevedoR., & CromleyJ. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia?Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.
4.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G., & SeibertD. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.
5.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.WintersF. I.MoosD. C., & GreeneJ. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.
6.
AzevedoR.GuthrieJ. T., & SeibertD. (2004). 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.
7.
AzevedoR., & HadwinA. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and meta-cognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.
8.
AzevedoR.MoosD. C.GreeneJ. A.WintersF. W., & CromleyJ. G. (in press). Why is externally-regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?Educational Technology Research and Development.
9.
AzevedoR.WintersF. I., & MoosD. C. (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn about science? The dynamics of self- and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 215–245.
10.
BrusilovskyP. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted lnteraction, 11, 87–110.
11.
BrusilovskyP. (2004). Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: The role of student knowledge level and the case for meta-adaptation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 487–497.
12.
ChiM. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.
ChiM. T. H.SilerS., & JeongH. (2004). Can tutors monitor students' understanding accurately?Cognition and Instruction, 22, 363–387.
15.
ChiM. T. H.SilerS.JeongH.YamauchiT., & HausmannR. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.
16.
CornoL., & MandinachE. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88–109.
17.
EomW., & ReiserR. (2000). The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on performance and motivation in computer-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 247–260.
18.
GoldmanS. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Commentary. Learning and Instruction, 13, 239–244.
19.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD., & VanLehnK. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225–234.
20.
HillJ., & HannafinM. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 37–64.
21.
Hmelo-SilverC., & AzevedoR. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 53–61.
22.
JacobsonM. J. (2005). From non-adaptive to adaptive educational hypermedia: Theory, research, and design issues. In ChenS. & MagalasG. (Eds.), Advances in Web-based education: Personalized learning environments (pp. 302–330). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
23.
JacobsonM., & ArchodidouA. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149–199.
24.
JacobsonM., & KozmaR. (2000). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
JacobsonM., & WilenskyU. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and research challenges for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11–34.
26.
JohnsonC. E.WoodR., & BlinkhornS. F. (1988) Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 153–162.
27.
KozmaR.ChinE.RussellJ., & MarxN. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–144.
28.
LajoieS. P., & AzevedoR. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In AlexanderP. & WinneP. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 803–821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
LajoieS. P., & NakamuraC. (2005). Multimedia learning of cognitive skills. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 489–506). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
30.
LandS., & GreeneB. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(3), 61–78.
McManusT. (2000). Individualizing instruction in a Web-based hypermedia learning environment: Nonlinearity, advance organizers, and self-regulated learners. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 219–251.
33.
Microsoft Corporation. (2003). Encarta Reference Library. [Computer Software]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.
34.
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.
35.
QuintanaC.ZhangM., & KrajcikJ. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235–244.
36.
RouetJ.-F. (2000). Guest editorial: Hypermedia and learning—Cognitive perspectives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 97–101.
37.
RouetJ.-F., & PasseraultJ.-M. (1999). Analyzing learner-hypermedia interaction: An overview of online method. Instructional Science, 27, 201–219.
38.
SchunkD. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85–94.
39.
ShapiroA. (2000). The effect of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from hypermedia. Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(1), 57–78.
40.
ShapiroA. (2005). The site map principle in multimedia learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 313–324). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
41.
ShapiroA., & NiederhauserD. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42.
VosniadouS., & BrewerW. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
43.
WhiteR., & FrederiksenJ. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211–223.
44.
WinneP. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–188.
45.
WinneP. H. (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.
46.
WinneP. H., & HadwinA. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ., & GraesserA. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47.
WinneP. H., & PerryN. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48.
ZimmermanB. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
49.
ZimmermanB. (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 (2nd ed., pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
