Regulation of tool-use within a blended course: Student differences and performance effects

Given the rising popularity of content management systems (CMSs) in higher education, the current study investigates how students use tools in CMS supported courses. More specifically, the current study investigates how students regulate their tool-use throughout the course period by considering the moment tools are used. This temporal dimension has been neglected in current CMS research that considered the course as a single entity when investigating students' tool-use. More insight into students' tool-use is particularly important from an instructional design perspective since research has repeatedly revealed that a learning environment's effectiveness depends heavily on students' adaptive tool-use. Logging students (n = 179) use of multiple CMS tools and registering students' use of the face-to-face support in a blended course, the study reveals that all students regulated their tool-use throughout the course. However, the study demonstrates that only a minority of students regulated one's tool-use in line with the course requirements and this pattern was found to be more adaptive for learning. The results are related to students' awareness regarding the instructional cues and students' perceptions of tool-functionalities. Implications for the instructional design of CMS supported courses are discussed.

[1]  Gerald Halpin,et al.  Relative Effectiveness of the California Achievement Tests in Comparison With the Act Assessment, College Board Scholastic Aptitude Test, and High School Grade Point Average in Predicting College Grade Point Average , 1981 .

[2]  Sherria L. Hoskins,et al.  Motivation and ability: which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement? , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[3]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  Using Web-based Pedagogical Tools as Scaffolds for Self-regulated Learning , 2005 .

[4]  Pam Marek,et al.  Pedagogical Aids in Textbooks: Do College Students' Perceptions Justify Their Prevalence? , 1999 .

[5]  A. Renkl.  Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self- explanations , 2002 .

[6]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Profiling the Differences in Students' Knowledge, Interest, and Strategic Processing , 1998 .

[7]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. , 2004 .

[8]  T. Andre.  Does Answering Higher-Level Questions While Reading Facilitate Productive Learning? , 1979 .

[9]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications , 1980 .

[10]  Steven R. Malikowski,et al.  A Model for Research into Course Management Systems: Bridging Technology and Learning Theory , 2007 .

[11]  Claudia Winter,et al.  Differential benefits of situated instructional prompts , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  D. W. Rowe,et al.  DOES RESEARCH SUPPORT THE USE OF “PURPOSE QUESTIONS” ON READING COMPREHENSION TESTS? , 1986 .

[13]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[14]  K. Kemper,et al.  Curriculum Resource Use and Relationships With Educational Outcomes in an Online Curriculum , 2009, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[15]  D. Perkins.  The Fingertip Effect: How Information-Processing Technology Shapes Thinking , 1985 .

[16]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  How Software Technologies Can Improve Research on Learning and Bolster School Reform , 2006 .

[17]  Geraldine Clarebout,et al.  Tool-use in a blended undergraduate course: In Search of user profiles , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Thomas J. Shuell,et al.  Phases of Meaningful Learning , 1990 .

[19]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  What Counts? The Predictive Powers of Subject-Matter Knowledge, Strategic Processing, and Interest in Domain-Specific Performance , 2002 .

[20]  H. Coates,et al.  A Critical Examination Of The Effects Of Learning Management Systems On University Teaching And Learning , 2005 .

[21]  Geraldine Clarebout,et al.  Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  M. Lepper.  Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. , 1985 .

[23]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Learning from Learning Kits: gStudy Traces of Students’ Self-Regulated Engagements with Computerized Content , 2006 .

[24]  Branka Spehar,et al.  Resource use and academic performance among first year psychology students , 2007 .

[25]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm , 1987 .

[26]  P. Hardré,et al.  Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design , 2010 .

[27]  Shane Dawson,et al.  Mining LMS data to develop an "early warning system" for educators: A proof of concept , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[28]  Walter Doyle,et al.  4: Paradigms for Research on Teacher Effectiveness , 1977 .

[29]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects , 1982 .

[30]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models , 2013 .

[31]  Genevieve Marie Johnson,et al.  Student Alienation, Academic Achievement, and WebCT Use , 2005, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[32]  Douglas Steinley,et al.  Local optima in K-means clustering: what you don't know may hurt you. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[33]  Hayne W. Reese,et al.  Verbal mediation as a function of age level. , 1962 .

[34]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  A METACOGNITIVE VIEW OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING , 1996 .

[35]  Geraldine Clarebout,et al.  Content Management Systems: Enriched learning opportunities for all? , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[36]  Andrew T. Lumpe,et al.  Student Use of Scaffolding Software: Relationships with Motivation and Conceptual Understanding , 2008 .

[37]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Modeling Domain Learning: Profiles From the Field of Special Education , 2004 .

[38]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  College Instruction and Concomitant Changes in Students’ Knowledge, Interest, and Strategy Use: A Study of Domain Learning , 1997 .

[39]  G. Salomon.  Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. , 1984 .

[40]  Gregory Schraw.  Knowledge: Structures and Processes. , 2006 .

[41]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic , 2000 .

[42]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive psychology and its implications, 2nd ed. , 1985 .

[43]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Context moderates students' self-reports about how they study , 2001 .