1. Winters, F., Greene, J., & Costich, C. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429-444. Self-Regulation of Learning within Computer-based Learning Environments: A Critical Analysis Presenter: Hsiao-lan Lee Professor: Ming-Puu Chen Date: 11 / 07 / 2009

2. 2 Introduction (1/3) Computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) present important opportunities for fostering learning (Lajoie and Azevedo 2006). –Little focus has been placed on understanding how successful students take advantage of these environments. –Many students fail to take full advantage of CBLEs, thus necessitating research into ways of promoting effective use of these powerful but often untapped learning environments. One potential mediator between the potential of CBLEs and academic performance is the quality of students’ self-regulatory learning (SRL) processes (Azevedo 2005b; Lajoie and Azevedo 2006).

3. 3 Introduction (2/3) Computer-based Learning Environments –afford several different representations of information  a type of multimedia learning environment –allow for user selection of links between representations or information  hypermedia environment –allow for direct user manipulation of these representations  simulation or microworld Empirical research has shown that students often struggle when using CBLEs. –It is often up to learners to determine which representations are most helpful. –Researchers have turned to SRL models to better understanding what specific SRL processes are associated with learning with CBLEs.

4. 4 Introduction (3/3) Self-regulated learning models –Four assumptions: 1)active in constructing their own meanings and goals 2)capable of monitoring and controlling 3)constrained or facilitated by intraindividual factors as well as extraindividual influences 4)position self-regulated learning as a mediator between personal and contextual influences and actual learning performance –Frameworks: 1)Pintrich (2000) : cognition, motivation, behavior, and context 2)Zimmerman (2000, 2001) : social cognitive factors 3)Winne and Hadwin (1998) : the cognitive architecture of SR –Models of SRL have received a great deal of attention in CBLE research because individuals that can effectively plan, monitor, and control their learning.

5. 5 Research questions 1.How do learner and task characteristics relate to students’ SRL with CBLEs? 2.Can various learning supports or conditions enhance the quality of students’ SRL as they learn with CBLEs? 3.What conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues exist for this growing area of research?

6. 6 Method Meta-analysis –33 articles –key words self regulat* along with computer, hypermedia, multimedia, simulation, and microworld –criteria: 1)empirical and peer-reviewed 2)SRL had to be a primary focus of the study. 3)focus on academic learning 4)CBLE had to be the primary instructional modality.

7. 7 Research question 1 Learner and task characteristics –High prior knowledge students tended to engage in greater instances of planning and monitoring. –Students who were more academically successful, or who showed higher learning gains during a task tended to use more active learning strategies. –Students working collaboratively supported each other in a regulatory manner, but the success of the collaboration depended in part on the ability and prior knowledge levels of the collaborating students. Patterns in motivation –Students’ self-efficacy for SRL has been shown to relate positively to other beliefs critical to academic success. –Goal orientation has been shown to be related to specific SRL behaviors, such as notetaking. –Students adapted their individual goals and plans in accordance with changes in task complexity.

8. 8 Research Question 2 Support tools –Students may have viewed support tools as aiding their SRL.  They did not always use tools and supports available to them. Conceptual support –Static conceptual learning supports in these studies increased planning behaviors. –Adaptive scaffolding for conceptual understanding as well as SRL increased planning, monitoring, and effective strategy use in concert with improved learning outcomes. Metacognitive support –Self-monitoring, strategy use and interest led to positive learning outcomes. –Students can be trained to use particular SRL processes that are considered effective for a given task.

9. 9 Research Question 3 Conceptual & Theoretical Issues Focus on a specific theoretical model or framework –23/33: (1) Zimmerman’s (2000, 2001) three-phase social-cognitive model, (2) Winne and Hadwin’s (1998) information processing model, and (3) Pintrich’s (2000) framework –10/33: treat SRL as a construct without theoretical distinctions –A lack of theoretical focus can produce a lack of clarity about terminology and definitions in the literature. ex: metacognition and SRL Different aspects of a particular model or theory –These differences in emphasis on various facets of SRL present a challenge to determining how all of them may be interrelated and how they may provide evidence for a particular theory or model of SRL.

10. 10 Research Question 3 Methodological Issues (1/3) The focus on just one area of SRL –Several studies analyzed trace data on just a few specific learning strategies, failing to capture SRL in its entirety. –Most theories and models define SRL as a recursive and recycling process between different phases.  Pulling apart individual pieces for scrutiny may not provide an accurate picture of the role the pieces play in the larger construct of SRL. –The self-report data alone would not have provided as accurate a picture of these students.  think-aloud protocol, discourse analysis

11. 11 Research Question 3 Methodological Issues (2/3) SRL and learning outcomes –One third of the reviewed studies did not include any type of measure of student learning. –Learning is Inherent in the definition of SRL.  But what conclusions about SRL is unrelated to learning outcomes. –This results make clear application and generalization of the results of these studies difficult.

12. 12 Research Question 3 Methodological Issues (3/3) SRL scaffolding through peers, tools, and tutors –The scaffolding’s impact on students’ self-regulated learning was then investigated.  However, the question remains as to how much of this regulation was self-initiated. –If these supports aid students’ SRL, the processes students engage in may more accurately be described as other- rather than self- regulated. –Support for self-regulation may be necessary in the development of SRL, but at what point should these supports be removed or faded?

13. 13 Conclusion and Future Directions 1.The majority of studies failed to measure SRL in all its diversity. 2.Future research should find ways to supplement or replace self- report measures for SRL. 3.There was a lack of focus on the quality of SRL processes used, and future research should strive to address this. 4.Not all studies linked SRL process use with learning outcomes. 5.Many of the studies provided support for different aspects of SRL, either through various tools, through access to tutors or feedback, through prompts, and through peers. 6.There is a need to identify whether the efficacy of particular SRL processes varies according to the type of CBLE used