CoNoteS2: A Software Tool for Promoting Self-Regulation - CiteSeerX

Educational Research and Evaluation 2001, Vol. 7, No. 2±3, pp. 313±334

1380-3611/01/0702±3±0313$16.00 # Swets & Zeitlinger

CoNoteS2: A Software Tool for Promoting Self-Regulation Allyson Fiona Hadwin1 and Philip H. Winne2 1

Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and 2Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT Integrating state-of-the-art computer technologies with pedagogically sound practice provides interesting challenges and potentially signi®cant opportunities to simultaneously promote and examine learning in context. This paper unfolds in 3 parts. We begin by introducing the reader to contemporary theories of self-regulation. We present a 4-phase model of self-regulating and a sparse literature on instructional design for SRL. Second, we build on this theory to describe features of CoNoteS2 (a prototype electronic notebook) that support self-regulation through tacit and explicit scaffolding. And ®nally, we describe the role of CoNoteS2 in researching about how students self-regulate their own learning. Our intent is to illustrate how contemporary learning theory can be used to drive instructional innovation and technological enhancement for the classroom.

INTRODUCTION Designing instructional environments that support self-regulation demands that contemporary learning theory drive instructional innovation and technological enhancement for the classroom. From this perspective computers have potential to become powerful learning tools, rather than additional resources for classroom activities. Such innovation requires that learning theorists, instructional designers, teachers, and computer programmers, collaborate to address four goals: (a) design instructional contexts that emphasize self-regulated of learning; Address correspondence to: Allyson Hadwin, Education Department, LB-578-10, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve West, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

314

ALLYSON FIONA HADWIN AND PHILIP H. WINNE

(b) devote energy to the development of learning technologies that have potential to support engagement in self-regulated learning; (c) integrate means for collecting rich sources of data to examine classroom learning in action, thereby moving research about learning into the complexity of the classroom; and (d) develop sophisticated methods of examining learning that draw on multiple sources of data and examine data through multiple theoretical lenses. In this paper we describe a prototype computer supported learning environment that is designed to meet these goals. CoNoteS2 (Winne, Hadwin, McNamara, Chu, & Field, 1998) is a prototype multi-component software tool we developed using an authoring system for building adaptive learning environments. CoNoteS2 is a sophisticated electronic notebook that incorporates electronic text and guides students in their notetaking and studying activities. The interface can be adapted for any course or learning material. While this software has potential for classroom use, it is primarily a research tool for examining the effects of instructional design, student interaction with software, and feedback on self-regulation. This represents the ®rst step in developing an adaptive notetaking version of CoNoteS2 that can be widely distributed for classroom use. This paper unfolds in three parts. We begin by introducing the reader to contemporary theories of self-regulation. In doing so we highlight a 4-phase model of self-regulating and a sparse literature on instructional design for SRL. Second, we build on this theory to describe features of CoNoteS2 that support self-regulation through tacit and explicit scaffolding. And ®nally, we describe the role of CoNoteS2 in researching about how students self-regulate their own learning. Our intent is to illustrate how contemporary learning theory can be used to drive instructional innovation and technological enhancement for the classroom.

WHAT IS SELF-REGULATED LEARNING? Lifelong learners, whether inside or outside the classroom, self-regulate their own learning by strategically interacting with tasks, and engaging cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational commitment and expertise. These learners not only take charge of their own learning, but they also make accurate

CONOTES2

315

assessments of how they are doing, and how they might improve (Pintrich, 1995). These learners persist when faced with challenge, and continually improve and adapt across a range of learning tasks and contexts. In other words, self-regulating learners strategically engage with the learning task cognitively, metacognitively, and motivationally (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Zimmerman (1990) identi®ed three consistent features of models of selfregulation. First, self-regulating learners are strategic in their use of tactics to achieve goals and optimize relations between self-regulatory processes and outcomes. Second, models of SRL pivot on recursive feedback loops of learning effectiveness that are woven into the self-system. And third, these models of learning are concerned with both how and why students selfregulate and therefore emphasize metacognitive and motivational factors. Consistent with the American Psychological Association's learner-centered psychological principles (see Abrami, this issue), contemporary models of self-regulation emphasize cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational factors as well as individual differences associated with productive self-regulation. Furthermore, models of SRL try to explain how these factors interrelate to produce effective and ef®cient learning. Recently, discussions have emerged about the social nature of self-regulation (Diaz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams, 1990; Gallimore & Tharpe, 1990; Hadwin, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997), but for the most part individual cognition, metacognition, and motivation dominate these models. Learning how to monitor and control cognitive processes and behaviors associated with learning is complex and challenging. It involves much more than acquiring and automating sets of study skills and methods (Butler & Winne, 1995). Dif®culties may arise in many parts of the learning process (Hadwin, 2000; Winne, 1995, 1997). Students may struggle to understand, monitor, or control ways they de®ne or interpret academic tasks (Briggs, 1990). In fact, task misunderstanding and failure to recognize poor task understanding may be at the root of many undergraduate students' academic dif®culties (Hadwin, 2000). Students may monitor their studying against poorly de®ned standards and goals (Morgan, 1987). They may create plans for studying or use studying strategies that are inef®cient for the kinds of tasks with which they are presented. Often, students adopt study skills and engage study activities that may not be very effective or ef®cient for meeting task standards or personal studying goals (cf. Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996). And probably most detrimentally, students may not accurately monitor or calibrate

316


their own self-monitoring across all these activities (Schraw, 1993; Winne, 1997; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Metacognitive monitoring and control are at the heart of all models of selfregulation (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994; Butler & Winne, 1995; Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; McCombs & Marzano, 1990; Schunk, 1994; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 1990). Self-regulating students self-evaluate and make judgements about whether or not they are on track throughout the phases of studying. In doing so, self-regulating students generate cognitive evaluations about the task, themselves as learners, and discrepancies between desired and actual accomplishments. Evaluations generated through metacognitive monitoring are then used to enact metacognitive control. As a result, students may choose alternative tactics, or adapt either the tactics themselves or understandings of those tactics. A 4-PHASE MODEL OF STUDYING AS SELF-REGULATING Building on syntheses of feedback and self-regulated learning (SRL; Butler & Winne, 1995) and goal setting in SRL (Hadwin & Winne, 1997), we proposed a model of studying as self regulated learning (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Grounded in theories of cognition, motivation, and metacognition, our model de®nes four phases of studying: (1) understanding the task, (2) setting goals and planning means to reach them, (3) enacting study tactics and strategies, and (4) metacognitively adapting studying `òn-line'' and for the future. A student copes with a task by constructing and updating understandings at each of these phases: information about a variety of environmental factors and individual differences, such as prior knowledge and motivation, provide contexts for the understandings of the task, one's goals and plans, and the actual activities of engagement to evolve. Students actively generate interpretations about each phase of studying, and make judgements about the accuracy of those interpretations. Although studying can proceed serially through phases 1 to 4, phases do not necessarily unfold in serial order. For example, some studying tasks may be so familiar that pattern recognition and inferencing mechanisms act automatically such that phase 1 is virtually skipped. Planning in phase 2 may create a goal that the student believes `òdd'' enough to return to phase 1 to seek clarifying information about the conditions constituting the context of a task. The products of phase 2 may invite a student to jump to phase 4 to modify a study strategy before engaging with the task at hand.

CONOTES2

317

OVERALL DESCRIPTION OF THE CONOTES2 INTERFACE CoNoteS and CoNoteS2 were designed to scaffold self-regulation in studying. CoNoteS2 is an electronic notebook providing both implicit and explicit supports for metacognitively monitoring and controlling engagement in the four phases of studying as self-regulated learning. Following we illustrate and describe three representative tools and interface features of CoNoteS2. These tools were designed speci®cally to assist students in studying textbook material that was integrated into the notebook itself. However, each feature can be adapted for other notetaking contexts and assigned tasks. We begin with an overall description of the interface itself, and then provide illustrations of how the software implicitly and explicitly promotes self-regulating. When the student opens CoNoteS2 an organizer window opens on the screen (see Fig. 1). The organizer window presents a list of textbook chapters to be read (upper left hand corner). When the student clicks on a textbook chapter, a list of subsections for that chapter appears in the bottom left hand ®eld titled ``Section.'' Each item in the list is a hotlink to a section of the textbook. Double clicking on the section title opens a section window (see Fig. 2). The right side of the section window (Fig. 2) displays one section of a textbook chapter. This chapter is ``Chp 1.'' The section is titled `Àre there sex differences?'' We refer to this kind of window as a section window because it displays a section of text. The left half of every section window is divided into ®ve vertically stacked panels. The top panel records the titles of the present chapter and chapter section. The panels below this display information the student constructs using tools CoNoteS2 provides. For example, in this section

Fig. 1.

Organizer window in CoNoteS2.

318

Fig. 2.


Section window containing text for one section of a textbook chapter.

the student has created one glossary entry called `ìndividual differences'' and one note called ``compare individual & sex differences.'' Students access studying tools by highlighting text and selecting a tool from the pop-up window. For example, Figure 3 shows the student beginning to create an index term for text highlighted in the section. Once created, this index term will appear in the Indexes panel. Students also have a number of other tools available to them as listed in the pop-up window in Figure 3. Students can highlight, create a new note, or create a new glossary (with or without copying the highlighted information directly into the note or glossary). All notes and glossaries that are created are recorded in the panels on the left hand side which become repositories for hyperlinked notes and glossary entries. Each note, glossary, or index title listed in the left hand panels is a hyperlink to its corresponding note, glossary, or index. Clicking it tells CoNoteS2 to scroll to the text in the chapter's section which the note is about (the text the student had selected when creating the

CONOTES2

Fig. 3.

319

A section window in CoNoteS2.

note), highlight that previously selected text, and then open the note the student made. Selecting ``New Glossary'' from the pop-up menu shown in Figure 3 brings up another window (see Fig. 4) where students enter the term they want to add to their glossary and create its de®nition. We call this a glossary making tool. Students are explicitly cued by a blank ®eld in this window labeled `Èxample'' to elaborate their glossary item by creating an example. Selecting ``New Note'' from the pop-up menu in Figure 3, creates a new note. This action provides a blank note window as shown in Figure 5. CoNoteS2 requires students to create a title for each note and posts that title to the Linked Notes panel in the section window (Fig. 2). This note was called ``Compare individ & sex differences'' as indicated in the top bar. The chapter and section where the note was created is automatically recorded in the top left panel. In the large blank area at the right, students

320


Fig. 4.

Glossary making tool.

Fig. 5.

Notetaking tool.

CONOTES2

321

enter their note. In a note, like in a chapter section, students can create indexes and glossary items. They can also link this note to other notes, and link a note from one chapter section to other sections. Above the notetaking area is a panel with ®ve checkboxes where students classify each note according to the type(s) of information it contains. This version of CoNoteS2 forces students to classify the note as an analysis, elaboration, summary, compare/contrast, or issue/question before allowing them to close the note and continue studying. This list of classi®cations could be anything. In this illustration note classi®cations represent types of notes that were relevant for a study we conducted and discuss later in this paper. The system keeps track of all the work students have completed in a continually visible Organizer window shown in Figure 6. By clicking on a chapter and then a section in that chapter, the student tells CoNoteS2 to display for that text: all note titles plus all glossary terms and indexes created in that section. Clicking on the title of a speci®c note identi®es the type(s) of information it contains (analysis, compare/contrast, elaboration, issue, summary) in the Note Types panel and opens that note window. The Search Note panel allows students to view all note windows for one or several particular types of note, such as all the notes that are summaries or that deal with issues. Clicking on a glossary term or an index term opens the chapter section window where that item was created, highlights the relevant text and, if the clicked item is a glossary term, opens the glossary window to present the glossary term, its description, and an example if the student created one. The same holds true for a note. When students have read a chapter section, that section title changes colour in the list. For example, the bottom left hand panel in Figure 6 lists

Fig. 6.

Updated organizer window showing all notes and glossaries.

322


`òbjectives,'' `Àre there sex differences?'', and ``Basic distinctions'' in a different colour than those that follow. This means the student has read each of those sections. CONOTES2 AS A TOOL FOR PROMOTING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING CoNoteS2 promotes self-regulation in two ways. First there are a number of tacit scaffolds built into the interface we described above. Second, there are some explicit means for promoting self-regulation using CoNoteS2. Both implicit and explicit scaffolds are described below and directly linked to our 4-phase model of studying as self-regulation (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Tacit Scaffolding for SRL CoNoteS2 has a number of tacit scaffolds or ways to support students in selfregulating learning. We use tacit scaffolds to refer to tools that are intended to cue students to attend to aspects of their studying without explicitly directing or instructing those studying activities. Based on a sketch developed by Winne (in press), we illustrate some tacit scaffolds already implemented in the software and forecast others on our drawing board. Phase 1: Task understanding De®ning the task is the ®rst stage of self-regulating learning. During this phase, students construct an understanding of the assigned or chosen task. For example, students try to determine why the reading is being assigned, what kind of engagement is required, what the professor's standards are for this task, and make judgments about their understanding of what they are supposed to do. A host of variables in¯uence engagement in the task understanding stage including knowledge such as goal orientation, learning styles, time constraints, available resources, task knowledge, distribution of subject matter expertise in the learning community, access to language and conceptual tools, and interest. Nolen and Haladyna (1990) made a distinction between two kinds of goals for studying: what the student wants (Phase 2 goals) and what the student thinks the teacher wants (Phase 1 products). They found that students' goals and their perceptions of their teachers' goals (assigned task) in¯uenced task

CONOTES2

323

orientation and beliefs about the value of strategy use while studying. This is an important ®nding because it highlights the interactivity between Phase 1 task understanding and Phase 2 goal setting/planning that guides task orientation. The perceptions students have about the quality and quantity of product and process standards within an assigned task may strongly in¯uence the evaluations and decisions they make during goal setting, planning, and strategy enactment. Designing software that supports self-regulation demands that students are supported to accurately calibrate their task understanding. Students study, often by taking notes, for a variety of reasons and in diverse contexts. For example, they may be gathering information for an essay, drafting an assignment, or preparing for an exam. As studying unfolds, students generate perceptions about what the studying task is, and identify constraints and resources that frame the conditions of that task. When students begin studying with CoNoteS2, they access textbook materials through an Organizer window where the chapter and section are selected (Fig. 1). In addition to the text itself, any note titles, glossary entries, and indexes created previously for that section are listed in the middle and right hand columns. The Organizer window was designed to support students in elements of phase 1 of our 4-phase model of SRL, task understanding. The set-up of the interface provides cues to the reader about the assigned task. For example, text chapters are broken down by section. Each section provides a unit of text that has some theme or main idea. Just as headings in a textbook provide cues about overall topics and themes students might record in their notes, these sections provide cues as to overall topics that should be synthesized in notes. The ®rst section in each chapter lists a series of instructor-provided learning objectives and the text itself also includes bolded terms and underlining (see Fig. 2). Each of these features provides tacit cues about the instructor, or textbook designer's intent for the learner. The organizer window provides cues that taking notes, making entries in glossaries, and indexing ideas are valuable study tactics since these are all tools that are available to the learner. Types of information notes might contain, listed in the Search Note panel, describe metaknowledge about forms of content. Students might use this metaknowledge to develop an understanding of what they should be taking notes about as well as why they are taking those notes at all. Note types can be framed to closely re¯ect the assigned reading task. In our example, the types of notes listed closely resemble learning objectives that were provided at the beginning of each chapter. By informing or reminding students of these ways

324


to examine and transform content they study, CoNoteS2 invites them to search long-term memory for schemas that contain more speci®c information (standards) for metacognitively monitoring what they are about to study. Those conditions are conditional knowledge, Ifs in If-Then rules, that then trigger different tactics for creating different kinds of notes ± analyses, summaries, and so forth. Searching for those rules is a simple form of planning that affords students' being more sensitive (discriminating) about particular tactics' applicability to studying this chapter. Phase 2: Setting goals and planning Thus far, the information we have referred to relates to the assigned task and/ or the assigned goal. The goals students set personally and from which they monitor progress, make use of information from Phase 1 task understanding, as well as other motivational and metacognitive knowledge. Consequently, the Phase 2 goals for the speci®c task are not always replications of the assigned goals (cf. Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). This 4-phase model of self-regulating makes a subtle but signi®cant distinction between assigned and self-set goals. We (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) acknowledge that successful students not only interpret the assigned task or goal accurately, but also strategically set their own goals for studying. In fact, it is the discrepancy between socially prescribed goals and student selected goals which necessitates acknowledging the role of the agentic self in learning. In Phase 2 goal setting/planning, students use knowledge about the task (created in Phase 1 task understanding) to make decisions about their own goals and planning for this task. This includes making evaluations or judgments about motivation, utility, ability, effort, and goal relevance based on a set of standards including: task criteria de®ned in phase 1, effort/utility thresholds, and motivation orientation. Therefore Phase 2 goal setting/ planning results in a set of self-set task speci®c process and product goals, as well as a plan for studying that may make use of a variety of tactics. Scholnick and Friedman (1993) have suggested that goal setting and task planning are contingent upon the complex interplay between cognition, beliefs, attitudes and motivation. Planners use this information to make strategic decisions about tactics and approaches to tasks. The 4-phase model of studying as self-regulating acknowledges the pivotal role of prior knowledge, motivation, epistemological beliefs, distributed expertise, access to language and conceptual tools, and individual differences in goal setting and discrepancy evaluations across all phases of studying. The recursive

CONOTES2

325

nature of this model of self-regulating accounts for the ways in which people make changes to their individual and collective interpretations and expressions of beliefs, tactics, and strategies in the midst of their interaction with a task, as well as after completion and evaluation of that task. Supporting students in setting and re®ning their own goals and plans for studying, is a critical feature of instructional design, and software design for self-regulation. The Organizer window also supports students in some elements of phase 2 of our 4-phase model of SRL, generating goals and plans. It is essentially a ``planning'' window that helps students plan for and organize notes. Students can see that there are objectives for a chapter and CoNoteS2 accommodates a variety of tactics and strategies for using that information. For instance, students might plan to view the course objectives to prepare a list of notes and glossary items they wish to complete during the study session. Alternatively, a student wanting to test her skills at ``psyching out'' objectives might plan to reserve this window as a basis for reviewing. Other options could be imagined. Each is tacitly cued by the fact that there is an objectives section that invites students to consider the task at hand and plan their use of studying tools. Some students might not judge themselves expert in studying tactics for analyzing or summarizing content because they have not yet automated them. And, perceptive (self-regulating) students might also know that it is dif®cult to study the content simultaneously with remembering the If-Then rules they need to carry out in applying such study tactics. They might of¯oad this information into a planning note about an objective. In creating that note, the student is rehearsing the study tactic and articulating it with a studying task, such as analyzing content. By indexing these planning notes, the student can assemble a self-constructed tool for metacognitively monitoring while studying the chapter's sections. Phase 3: Enacting study tactics CoNoteS2 was designed to support students in metacognitive monitoring and control in the midst of studying. As shown in Figure 5, each note window contains several panels that characterize a variety of schemes for organizing notes. Notes may be organized by chapter, section, indexes to information, glossary titles created within a note, and other notes that are linked to this note. These labeled panels in a note window implicitly invite a student to select, organize, translate, rehearse and assemble ideas. It also provides means for searching for student-generated and textbook provided review materials.

326


Prior to closing a note, the student must classify each note as to its type. Implicitly, this reminds students of tactics that might be applied in order to meet the kinds of study objectives provided for a given chapter. Students are encouraged to consider how they might want to use the note type classi®cations in review sessions because notes can be retrieved according to type (see Fig. 5). The tools here provide tacit assistance for studying. That is they don't instruct students about the value of tactics and operations such as translating and assembling but they: (a) provide means for students to engage those processes, and (b) engaging those processes makes it easier for students to access and review notes. Phase 4: Evaluating and adapting metacognition In Phase 4, the student inspects products created in preceding phases, monitoring them relative to metaknowledge that characterizes standards. Monitoring at Phase 4 is not just about ®ne-tuning the studying process within just Phase 1 or 2 or 3. Rather, decisions made in Phase 4: (a) address how activities coordinate across several Phases of studying and may result in large scale adjustments to the student's cognition, motivation, and affect associated with this task; and (b) reach beyond the boundaries of the present studying task to change the conditions for studying in the future. Acting on these latter decisions results in relatively permanent changes to cognitive conditions that will in¯uence future studying. Evaluation judgments can result in dynamic changes and adaptations to plans, goals, task understandings and tactics themselves. The forward reaching and backward reaching in¯uences of metacognitive monitoring and control across phases of studying initiate changes to cognition, behaviour, motivation, affect, and the socio-cultural environment. The recursive and dynamic properties of self-regulating in this 4-phase model constitute a suf®ciently powerful explanatory model of learning to account for multiple goals working in dynamic synchronicity at both individual and collective levels. CoNoteS2 is designed to support students in tracking and considering how their study activities evolve over time. When students review studying episodes they can view all the types of notes and glossaries created during that session. For each chapter and section, students can use the organizer window (Fig. 1) to review the number of notes and glossaries created, the contents of those notes and glossaries, and the types of notes created (analysis, summary, etc.). Students can examine the ways that they adapted studying to weekly objectives. Did they create more glossary notes when they were

CONOTES2

Fig. 7.

Log®le of studying activities recorded in CoNoteS2.

327

328


expected to focus on de®nitions and terms? Did they create more analysis notes when they were expected to critically evaluate various theories? After completing practice tests at the end of each chapter, students can re-assess their approaches to studying and add new notes and glossaries where appropriate. This type of reviewing can occur by viewing information in the organizer window (Fig. 1), or examining the side panels to the left of each section of text (Fig. 2). Research suggests that students may not accurately identify sources of studying dif®culty or use that information to adapt studying activities and assessments (Hadwin, 2000; Winne, 1997). Future versions of CoNoteS2 will be engineered to provide tools to help students repair these de®cits. To explain our plans in this area requires describing how CoNoteS2 logs events and information students generate in a study session. Figure 7 is a display of a portion of the information that is recorded as a log of studying events. The underlying Study programming environment also provides methods for operating on this information, for example, marking and counting events of particular types. These capabilities in the underlying Study environment can be used to `ànalyze'' how a student studied. For instance, suppose a student had studied a chapter and, like almost every student, made a variety of highlights throughout that material. Then, a few days later, when the student prepared for an examination, CoNoteS2 provided a complete list of all the text segments that were underlined and invited the student to rate the signi®cance of each segment relative to what the student expects will be tested. After the test was administered and scored, the student was guided by CoNoteS2 to carry out a post-hoc analysis of the correspondence between (a) what was underlined, (b) how the student rated it when reviewing for the test, and (c) how underlined text segments contributed to performance on the test. By scaffolding this kind of analysis, CoNoteS2 guides the student to consider such factors as whether the ``right'' kinds of text segments, relative to the test, were underlined in the ®rst instance; whether review of that material was productive; and, whether other kinds of study tactics might be more useful in future. In general, coupling a record of events that describe how a student studies, we expect to help students become better calibrated about of what they do versus what they think they do. And, by building tools that help students examine the utility of using particular studying tactics on particular content relative to particular objectives, we also predict a bene®t to students' calibration of when and why particular study tactics are appropriate.

CONOTES2

329

Explicit Scaffolding SRL To this point we have introduced tacit scaffolds for SRL within CoNoteS2. The system's design also affords opportunities to provide explicit forms of scaffolding and instruction for students who are struggling, as we illustrated somewhat in the preceding section about adaptation. Below we present two other examples of explicitly scaffolding SRL. The ®rst has been implemented successfully. The second and third are on the drawing board. Scaffolding with ``Stocked'' notes, glossaries, and indexes Over the course of several pilot studies using CoNoteS2, we observed that students often grappled with the new software and novel tools provided in CoNoteS2. To reduce some of this cognitive load, we explored the effects of ``stocking'' CoNoteS2 with note titles (but not note content), glossary terms (but not glossary information), and indexes. Our intent was to scaffold students' transition to using study tools in CoNoteS2 studying tools to facilitate strategic studying. Each note title and glossary term listed in the organizer window also offered explicit information about key material to study and the type(s) of note students might make (e.g., analysis, summary, elaboration, etc.). The stocked version of CoNoteS2 supported students to engage more activities such as making notes, glossaries and examples ± activities re¯ecting deeper or more complex cognitive processing (Hadwin, Jamieson-Noel, McTavish, McNamara, & Winne, 2000). Despite this bene®t, we failed to reduce cognitive load for all students, as the following re¯ections illustrate. In this session, because the note and glossary terms were prepared for me, I felt that I had to ®ll them with notes from the text, but normally I would not have made quite so many notes. My ef®cacy was quite low in this session because of my results from the ®rst session and the problems I had. Firstly, I found the computer learning environment to be extremely mentally fatiguing. Not only did I have to concentrate on information that I was unfamiliar with, I also had to concentrate on the use of an extremely complicated learning tool. Whereas, studying with the paper and pencil I did not need as much cognitive resources for the use of my study tools. Therefore I could concentrate on the material to be learned. This seems to support the various beliefs about the constraints of working memory and the bene®cial belief of automaticity.

330


These data point to a need to design software for scaffolding studying so it is less taxing. It may be simply that students require more practice with tools like CoNoteS2 offers to automate their use of the software. It may also be that undergraduates could pro®t by direct instruction in study tactics. Scaffolding with explicit instruction about study tactics Opportunities for explicitly instructing students about tactics and strategies are in®nite in CoNoteS2. We provide one example as an illustration of the kinds of instructional modules and tools that may be added to CoNoteS2. In one study we (Winne, Hadwin, McNamara, & McTavish, 1999) found that manipulating the cognitive complexity of objectives accompanying each chapter had minimal to no effect on how students studied. We provided three explanations: (a) students may have experienced cognitive overload in adapting to a set of prescribed processing objectives as they worked with challenging content using an unfamiliar and complex software studying system, (b) students may have poor perceptions about tasks that vary in cognitive complexity, that is, they may not grasp differences between tasks that are cued by objectives, and (c) students may lack the prerequisite skills in studying tactics with which to adapt studying to meet the processing demands of the task. Assuming that the problem is one of the latter two (the ®rst was addressed in previous section) we provide the following model of an instructional tool that might be integrated into future iterations of this interface. Suppose a student is working on a chapter accompanied by learning objectives stating that students should be prepared to explain or provide alternative hypotheses. At the end of the chapter, the student performs poorly on a practice test. Using features that Study provides, CoNoteS2 might provide the student with a summary of the note types she created while studying that chapter. For each note type, a pop-up window might appear that describes each note type and indicates the type of learning objectives for which that note is best suited. Students might then be asked to review notes and upon closing each note, a pop-up window might appear asking the student to monitor that note's suitability for the current objectives (to explain and hypothesize) according to three criteria (e.g., (i) the note is written in my own words, (ii) the note provides my own questions or thoughts rather than a reiteration of the text, (iii) the note makes links between ideas in this chapter and other knowledge I have acquired in the course).

CONOTES2

331

CoNoteS2 might be modi®ed to count notes types as a student makes them and to observe for each note whether the note type matches a set of predetermined note types for a given objective. When the note type is discrepant with the objective, CoNoteS2 might interrupt studying the chapter and provide a brief tutorial about the relationship between notetaking activities and studying objectives. Further assistance could then be provided through a ``help'' button for each note type and each learning objective. This feature would provide opportunities for students to seek explanations and examples of the task itself, as well as the appropriate notetaking and glossary tactics for addressing the task. CONOTES2 AS A RESEARCH TOOL FOR EXAMINING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Computer supported learning environments are popular for instruction at all educational levels. As these environments become increasingly prevalent and sophisticated in design, it becomes important to investigate how students navigate and use hypermedia tools to enhance learning (MacGregor, 1999). Speci®cally, what evidence do we have that these instructional tools support the kinds of complex and dynamic processes educational reform demands? Do these computer technologies promote tactics and strategies indicative of selfregulated learning (SRL)? Understanding how the complex learning processes such as SRL unfold poses challenges for researchers. We (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) emphasize self-regulating as an ongoing process, rather than a ®nal state or product. It is a process that develops in sophistication across time and over practice, and it is a lifelong process starting at a very rudimentary and mechanical level in early childhood and developing in complexity and adaptability throughout adulthood. Examining self-regulation from this perspective requires that data be collected over time and across task contexts (Hadwin, 2000; Winne & Perry, 1999). Future examination of SRL as it evolves in the context of hypermedia instruction can be enhanced by collecting precise traces of student engagement with online materials (Barab, Bowdish, & Lawless, 1997; Rouet & Passerault, 1999; Winne, Gupta, & Nesbit, 1994). Representing the complexity of SRL requires data about all four phases of studying as SRL (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Measuring variables in phases 3 and 4 presents particularly

332


signi®cant challenges (Winne & Perry, 1999). Traces (Winne, 1982) of dynamic cognitive events±data students generate while studying such as highlights of text, notes made and revised, and re-views of material±have strong potential to contribute to interpretations about SRL `às it happens.'' Moreover, such data can be triangulated with measures of achievement and self-report data to investigate how and why students regulate studying, and what students perceive SRL's effects to be as well as what its actual effects are. Collecting trace data is also the basis for investigating how students develop and adapt forms for self-regulating learning over time. Findings from studies using CoNoteS2 con®rm that this panoply of data presents researchers with signi®cant challenges due to the general complexity of SRL per se and the spectrum of students' individual differences forms of SRL (McNamara, Hadwin, Jamieson-Noel, McTavish, & Winne, 2000; Winne, Hadwin, McNamara, & McTavish, 1999; Winne et al., 1998). As well, because SRL is de®ned as change in events over time, methodologies for characterizing changes in temporal patterns of data need to be brought to bear. CONCLUSIONS Integrating state-of-the-art computer technologies with pedagogically sound practice provides considerably interesting challenges and potentially signi®cant opportunities for new kinds of laboratory studies and design experiments. Our approach to this fusion has been grounded in an empirically-based model of complex cognitive activity. It is our belief that, by designing technology that serves as a conduit for cognition while simultaneously promoting learning, a fuller theory of self-regulating one's learning will emerge. In turn, that theory will provide better guidance about how to increase the likelihood that education supported by technology can be more productive. It is our position that both theory and practice need one another, each providing essential information for the other. CoNoteS is one tool we use in our work in both arenas. REFERENCES Barab, S.A., Bowdish, B.E., & Lawless, K.A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation: Pro®les of hypermedia users. ETR&D, 45, 23±41. Borkowski, J.G., & Thorpe, P.K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A lifespan perspective on under achievement. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of

CONOTES2

333

Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Implications (pp. 45±73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Briggs, P. (1990). Do they know what they're doing? An evaluation of word-processor users' implicit and explicit task-relevant knowledge and its role in self-directed learning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 32, 385±398. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245±281. Diaz, R.M., Neal, C.J., & Amaya-Williams, M. (1990). The social origins of self-regulation. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 127±154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gallimore, R., & Tharpe, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching schooling and literate discourse. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175±205). New York: Cambridge University Press. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 127±154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hadwin, A.F. (2000). Building a Case for Self-regulating as a Socially Constructed Phenomenon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Hadwin, A.F., Jamieson-Noel, D.L., McTavish, R., McNamara, J.K., & Winne, P.H. (2000, April). Designing courses to support self-regulated learning: Teacher as researcher. In P.H. Winne (Chair), Four Views of Computer-supported Research on Self-regulated Learning. American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Hadwin, A.F., & Winne, P.H. (1997, June). Goal-Setting as a Phase of Self-regulated Studying: An Examination and Synthesis of the Literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, St John's, NF, Canada. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99±136. MacGregor, S.K. (1999). Hypermedia navigation pro®les: Cognitive characteristics and information processing strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 189±206. McCombs, B.L., & Marzano, R.J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51±69. McNamara, J.K., Hadwin, A.F., Jamieson-Noel, D.L., McTavish, R., & Winne, P.H. (2000, April). CoNoteS2 as an intervention to promote self-regulated learning. In P.H. Winne (Chair), Four Views of Computer-supported Research on Self-regulated Learning. American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Morgan, M. (1987). Self-monitoring and goal setting in private study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 1±6. Nolen, S.B., & Haladyna, T.M. (1990). Personal and environmental in¯uences on students' beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116±130. Pintrich, P.R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In P.R. Pintrich (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Vol. 63. Understanding Self-regulated Learning (pp. 3±12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

334


Rouet, J.-F., & Passerault, J.-M. (1999). Analyzing learner±hypermedia interaction: An overview of online methods. Instructional Science, 27, 201±219. Scholnick, E.K., & Friedman, S.L. (1993). Planning in context: Developmental and situational considerations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 145±167. Schraw, G. (1993). Constraints on the calibration of performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 455±463. Schunk, D.H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-ef®cacy and attributions in academic settings. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Implications (pp. 75±100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195±208. Winne, P.H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13±28. Winne, P.H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173±187. Winne, P.H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 397±410. Winne, P.H. (in press). Information processing models of self-regulated learning. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Longman. Winne, P.H., & Field, D. (2000). STUDY: An Environment for Authoring and Presenting Adaptive Learning Tutorials (version 3.5) [computer program]. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University. Winne, P.H., Gupta, L., & Nesbit, J.C. (1994). Exploring individual differences in studying strategies using graph theoretic statistics. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XL, 177±193. Winne, P.H., & Hadwin, A.F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 277±304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Winne, P.H., Hadwin, A.F., McNamara, J.K., Chu, S.T.L., & Field, D. (1998). CoNoteS2: An Electronic Notebook with Support for Self-regulation and Learning Tactics [computer program]. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University. Winne, P.H., Hadwin, A.F., McNamara, J.K., & McTavish, R. (1999, April). Tracing Selfregulating Learning as Students Study with CoNoteS2. Paper accepted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Winne, P.H., & Perry, N.E. (1999). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 531±566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3±17. Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (Eds.). (in press). Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Longman.