Supporting Self-Regulated Learning of Scientific Concepts through Interactive Learning Tasks Product and Process Findings

Supporting Self-Regulated Learning of Scientific

Concepts through Interactive Learning Tasks –

Product and Process Findings

Felix Kapp, Hermann Körndle, Susanne Narciss & Antje Proske Psychology of Learning & Instruction, TU Dresden, Germany

Berlin, 11.09.2009

ƒ Self-regulated learning

ƒ Supporting SRL through interactive learning tasks

ƒ Method

ƒ Results

ƒ Conclusion

Self-Regulated Learning

Self-Regulated Learning (Zimmerman, 2000):

set goals choose techniques and strategies sustain motivation implement techniques and strategies evaluate learning progress

In case of low achievement: correct strategies

Interactive Learning Tasks

Components of interactive learning tasks (Körndle, Narciss & Proske, 2004):

Content Format Cognitive operations Interactivity

Learning tasks

Content Task analysis

learning goals - Feedback - hints - distractors Knowledge Space

Interactive Learning tasks in CBLEs can facilitate :

ƒ the learner‘s retention and understanding of learning material ƒ the learner‘s knowledge organization and application

ƒ the learner‘s assessment of his progress of knowledge and skill acquisition

Interactive Learning Tasks and SRL

Evaluation Phase Forethought Phase Performance Phase Learning Tasks • show demands

• activate previous knowledge

• guide attention

• evaluate achievement

• evaluate used strategies •_•learn and practice_{use hints}

Purpose of the Study

ƒ

Investigate the effects of interactive learning tasks on

learners‘ achievement in acquiring scientific concepts

ƒ

Gain information about how interactive learning tasks

support the process of self-regulated learning.

Method

ƒ Sample: 20 university students (University of Applied Science Neubrandenburg, Germany)

ƒ Instructional context: Early education, scientific concepts

(e.g. Piaget‘s stages of cognitive development)

ƒ Instructional scenario: Blended learning class, students

were supposed to study relevant texts at home to prepare for the following presence class

ƒ Procedure: 4 months, 6 presence classes and self-regulated

Material

Material

Interactive Learning Tasks:

Hint Button

Progress Bar

Item Stem Distractors

Procedure

10 tasks 10 tasks 15 tasks 5 tasks 8 tasks

no tasks

12 tasks

CG

EG

Textbook +

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Knowledge-

Results

Learning achievement:

ƒ 14 students worked on the knowledge test in the evaluation session

The experimental group (n = 8, M = 9.9, SD = 2.1) showed a significant higher achievement (t(14) = -3.27, p<.01, d = 1.54) than the control group (n = 6, M = 5.7, SD = 2.7).

Log files:

Evaluation session:

ƒ Mean working time for set of 12 tasks: 12.1 min

ƒ Interactive learning tasks solved correctly: 6.7 out of 12 All sessions:

ƒ Average working time on learning tasks: 53 minutes ƒ Three students did not use the learning tasks

ƒ Several students worked twice on single sections ƒ Hints were hardly used (only 5%).

Results

Interviews:

ƒ Several students of the EG had read the text twice - once before working on the tasks and once after getting the feedback from the interactive learning tasks.

ƒ Students stated that working on the 12 tasks was done in relative short time.

ƒ Benefited from the offer

ƒ Some students of the control group reported that they only glanced over the text.

ƒ The teacher realized that students this semester were better prepared (concerning all six presence sessions).

Results

ƒ A higher achievement of students uses learning tasks while studying texts.

ƒ Results suggest that achievements are based on feedback on the learning process provided by the learning tasks as well as active processing of the information while working on the tasks.

ƒ Further research on interactive learning tasks should address in more detail the cognitive and motivational functions in

self-regulated learning, which can be supported by providing such tasks.

Conclusion

Artelt, C., Demmrich, A. & Baumert, J. (2001). SelbstreguliertesLernen. In J. Baumert, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M.

Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, P. Stanat, K.-J. Tillmann & M. Weiß(Hrsg.), PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von

Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich(S. 271-298). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212-242.

Klauer, K. (1987). Kriteriumsorientierte Tests. Göttingen.: Hogrefe.

Körndle, H., Narciss, S. & Proske, A. (2004). Konstruktion interaktiver Lernaufgaben für die universitäre Lehre. In D.

Carstensen & B. Barrios (Hrsg.), Campus 2004. Kommen die digitalen Medien an den Hochschulen in die Jahre?(S.

57-67). Münster: Waxmann.

Narciss, S. (2007). Feedback strategies for interactive learningtasks. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. van Merrienboer,

& M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd_{ed., pp. 125-144).}

Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Narciss, S. (2006). Informatives tutorielles Feedback. Entwicklungs- und Evaluationsprinzipien auf der Basis

instruktionspsychologischer Erkenntnisse.Reihe Pädagogische Psychologie und Entwicklungspsychologie (Band 56). Münster: Waxmann.

Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Körndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments.

Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1126-1144.

Zimmerman, B.J.& Campillo, M. (2003): Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In: Davidson, J.E.& Sternberg, R.J.

(Eds.): The nature of problem solving.New York: Cambridge University Press