This classroom study examined the role of low-achieving students' self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviors and their teacher's scaffolding of SRL while using a Web-based water quality simulation environment to learn about ecological systems. Forty-nine 11th and 12th grade students learned about ecology and the effects of land use on water quality by collaboratively using the RiverWebSM water quality simulation (WQS) during a two-week curriculum on environmental science. The students' emerging understanding was assessed using pretest and posttest scores. Students' self-regulatory behaviors and teacher's scaffolding of SRL were assessed through an analysis of their discourse during several collaborative problem-solving episodes. Findings indicate that students learned significantly more about ecology after working collaboratively with the WQS. However, these learning gains were quite small and were related to the self-regulatory behaviors observed in the dyads and their teacher's scaffolding and instruction. Analyses of video data indicate that a large amount of time was spent by the dyads and teacher in using only a few strategies, while very little time was spent on planning, monitoring, and handling task difficulties and demands. Further analysis revealed that both the dyads and teacher were using low-level strategies (e.g., following procedural tasks, evaluating the content, searching, and selecting informational sources in the WQS) to learn about the topic. Our results provide a valuable initial characterization of the complexity of self-and other-regulated learning in a complex, dynamic, technology-enhanced, student-centered science classroom. We discuss how the results will be used to inform the design of computers as MetaCognitive tools designed to foster students' learning of conceptually challenging science topics.
References
1.
AzevedoR. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Computers as MetaCognitive tools to enhance learning?Instructional Science, 30(1), 31–45.
2.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.SeibertD. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.
3.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.WintersF. I.XuL.InyD. (2003). Is strategy instruction effective in facilitating students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? In HoppeU.VerdejoF.KayJ. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 193–200). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
4.
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, 87–111.
5.
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.
6.
BaylorA. (2003). Evidence that multiple agents facilitate greater learning. In HoppeU.VerdejoF.KayJ. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 377–379). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
7.
BiswasG.SchwartzD., Bransford, J., & CTGV. (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. In ForbusK.FeltovichP. (Eds.), Smart machines in education. Cambridge Press, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BoekaertsM.PintrichP.ZeidnerM. (2000), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9.
ButlerD. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 682–697.
10.
ButlerD. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 81–92.
11.
ClarkD.LinnM. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493.
12.
CornoL.RandiJ. (1999). A design theory for classroom instruction in self-regulated learning? In ReigeluthC. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II; pp. 293–318). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
DerryS. J.LajoieS. P. (1993). Computers as cognitive tools (1st ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
GreeneB.LandS. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–179.
15.
HickeyD.KindfieldA.HorowitzP.ChristieM. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495–538.
16.
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.
17.
JonassenD. (1996). Computers as mind tools for schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
LajoieS. P.AzevedoR. (2000). Cognitive tools for medical informatics. In LajoieS. P. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 247–271). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
LajoieS. P.GuerreraC.MunsieS.LavigneN. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186.
22.
MayerR. (2003). Learning environments: The case for evidence-based practice and issue-driven research. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 359–366.
23.
McCaslinM.HickeyD. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygtoskian perspective. In ZimmermanB.SchunkD. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
MeyerD.TurnerJ. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 17–25.
25.
ParisS. G.ParisA. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.
26.
PerryN. (2002). Introduction: Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 1–3.
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.
29.
Rasku-PuttonenH.EtelapeltoA.ArvajaM.HakkinenP. (2003). Is successful scaffolding an illusion? Shifting patterns of responsibility and control in teacher-student interaction during a long-term learning project. Instructional Science, 31, 377–393.
30.
ReiserB.TabakI.SandovalW.SmithB.SteinmullerF.LeoneA. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In CarverS.KlahrD. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
SchunkD. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In ZimmermanB.SchunkD. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
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: Erlbaum.
33.
SlottaJ. D.LinnM. C. (2000). The knowledge integration environment: Helping students use the Internet effectively. In JacobsonM.KozmaR. (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
34.
SuthersD.HundhausenC. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.
35.
VyeN.SchwartzD.BransfordJ.BarronB., Zech, L., & CTGV. (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.
36.
WhiteB. Y.ShimodaT. A.FrederiksenJ. R. (2000). Facilitating students' inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In LajoieS. P. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 97–132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
WilliamsM. (1996). Learner control and instructional technologies. In JonassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Scholastic.
38.
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.
39.
WinneP.HadwinA. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
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.
41.
WinneP.StockleyD. (1998). Computing technologies as sites for developing self-regulated learning. In SchunkD.ZimmermanB. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 106–136). New York: Guilford.
42.
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 (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
