Original article doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x
Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education jcal_476
1..17
A. Devolder,* J. van Braak* & J. Tondeur*† *Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium †Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium
Abstract
Despite the widespread assumption that students require scaffolding support for self-regulated learning (SRL) processes in computer-based learning environments (CBLEs), there is little clarity as to which types of scaffolds are most effective. This study offers a literature review covering the various scaffolds that support SRL processes in the domain of science education. Effective scaffolds are categorized and discussed according to the different areas and phases of SRL. The results reveal that most studies on scaffolding processes focus on cognition, whereas few focus on the non-cognitive areas of SRL. In the field of cognition, prompts appear to be the most effective scaffolds, especially for processes during the control phase. This review also shows that studies have paid little attention to scaffold designs, learner characteristics, or various task characteristics, despite the fact that these variables have been found to have a significant influence. We conclude with the implications of our results on future design and research in the field of SRL using CBLEs.
Keywords
computer-based learning environments, scaffolding, sciences, self-regulated learning.
Introduction
Current computer-based learning environments (CBLEs), such as web-based learning environments and hypermedia learning environments, are widely used in the field of education in order to foster the learning of challenging or complex topics, such as science (Lajoie & Azevedo 2006; Jacobson & Azevedo 2008). CBLEs are characterized by open-endedness, the use of multiple representational formats (e.g. text, graphics, animation, and audio and video tools), and the
Accepted: 28 November 2011 Correspondence: Anneline Devolder, Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email:
[email protected]
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
provision of non-linear and non-sequential structured information (Land & Hannafin 2000; Azevedo 2008). Therefore, CBLEs can be of use in enhancing tangibility or even in manipulation, thus increasing the accessibility of complex topics that cannot be described or comprehended in non-CBLEs (Gerjets et al. 2008). Moreover, because of the non-linearity of these environments, students can exercise greater control over their own learning processes, and they can even choose information based on their own interests or goals (e.g. Gerjets et al. 2008). These possibilities require students to possess the skills necessary to cope with the systemic characteristics of current CBLEs. If students do not possess these skills, they might experience cognitive overload, usability problems, and distractions, which might hamper their 1
2
learning process (Iiyoshi & Hannafin 1998; Scheiter & Gerjets 2007). Learner characteristics such as prior knowledge and cognitive and metacognitive skills influence students’ learning processes in these CBLEs (Hannafin et al. 1999). Furthermore, motivational characteristics such as goal orientation and intrinsic motivation determine how the information retrieved from a CBLE would be processed (Hannafin et al. 1999; Jiang et al. 2009). These examples show that in order to analyse and capture learning processes when using a CBLE, the amount of prior knowledge that the learners have needs to be related to the skills they deploy to cope with the systemic demands and to the cognitive and metacognitive processes and strategies they apply based on their motivation. This implies that for effective learning in these environments, the processes of selfregulated learning (SRL) need to be applied (Azevedo 2008). According to Zimmerman (2001), learners are self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviourally active participants in their own learning process. Interestingly, these environments not only require the application of some of these self-regulatory processes but they also help to promote autonomy, and they might even stimulate self-regulation (Hannafin et al. 1999). Although the use of CBLEs in the field of education appears promising, a conclusion as to their effectiveness cannot yet be derived (Azevedo 2005). Students, especially novices and younger learners, fail to realize learning gains in CBLEs as they often lack the necessary selfregulation skills (e.g. Azevedo 2005). To realize the full potential of CBLEs as mediators for learning complex topics, students must be given the opportunities to enhance their SRL skills and domain knowledge (Bernacki et al. 2011). This can be facilitated by providing learners with a well-designed CBLE. This means that along with the inherent systemic characteristics of current CBLEs, other design features must be taken into account and put into perspective for supporting the necessary SRL processes (Schraw 2007). A generally accepted type of support related to these SRL processes is the use of scaffolds (Dabbagh & Kitsantas 2005; Shapiro 2008). Scaffolds are described as ‘. . . the provision of technology-mediated support to learners as they engage in a specific learning task’ (Sharma & Hannafin 2007, p. 29). Although there is general agreement about the need to scaffold SRL with CBLEs, there is little clarity as to
A. Devolder et al.
which types of scaffolds are effective in supporting the use and facilitation of SRL processes (e.g. Azevedo 2005). Therefore, the general aim of this study is to provide an overview of the scaffolds that have been shown to be effective for SRL processes. More concretely, given the domain specificity of SRL and the domain of science as a facilitator of higher-order thinking, studies published in the last decade focusing on both the effects of scaffolding processes for SRL with CBLEs and on the domain of science education are within the scope of our research. Additionally, context as well as personal and task characteristics are covered. Background SRL with CBLEs
Research has shown that for effective learning in today’s open-ended CBLEs, students need to show greater skills of engagement than those required in traditional learning environments (Winters et al. 2008). For instance, CBLEs allow greater learner control, thus enabling learners to choose, organize, analyse, and process information according to their interests (Iiyoshi & Hannafin 1998; Gerjets et al. 2008). The skills a learner requires, along with interactions during the learning process, learner characteristics such as motivation, self-beliefs, and prior knowledge, and the learning context represent a self-regulated learner (Azevedo 2005; Winters et al. 2008). This is why research on understanding learning has focused on SRL theories, the role of the learner, and the context when learning in CBLEs (Winters et al. 2008). SRL was defined by Pintrich (2000) as ‘an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment’ (p. 453). Learners are likely to enjoy success in CBLEs if they employ SRL processes (Winters et al. 2008). Unfortunately, in practice, few students attain this level of competence (Dignath et al. 2008), and it has been stated that many students fail to exploit the opportunities afforded by CBLEs (Clarebout & Elen 2006). This cannot be explained solely by a lack of cognitive or metacognitive skills on the part of students; it must also be indicative of suboptimal behaviour and lack of motivation to © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
use these tools (Jiang et al. 2009). Thus, students clearly require support to use these CBLEs to their full potential. Before determining the most appropriate support for SRL processes, SRL must first be defined in order to map out the different SRL processes. Unfortunately, many distinctive and overlapping definitions exist in literature (Bernacki et al. 2011). It is essential that the SRL model used integrates the key constructs of SRL. Next, because most SRL models and theories have been constructed on the basis of traditional learning, it is not clear as to what extent these models or theories fully match the learning processes in CBLEs. Therefore, in this study, an integrated SRL framework is used. This framework was constructed using an amalgamation of three central SRL models (Zimmerman 1989; Winne & Hadwin 1998; Pintrich 2000) and extended based on more recent empirical studies related specifically to the context of learning science using CBLEs (e.g. Azevedo 2008). This integrated model consists of four phases of SRL – task definition and planning, monitoring, control, and reaction and reflection – and four areas of SRL – cognition, motivation, behaviour, and context. These four phases are related to actions towards the task, context, and self (Pintrich 2000; Devolder et al. 2010). The first phase involves planning and goal setting of the task and context as well as the activation of prior knowledge and perceptions upon this task and context. In the second phase, students monitor their processes. These processes involve the metacognitive awareness of the self, task, and context. In the third phase, the different aspects of the self, task, and context are controlled and regulated. The fourth phase involves different reactive and reflective processes upon the self, task, and context (Pintrich 2000). The four phases of SRL can be applied to the four areas. First, the cognitive area is related to the cognitive strategies students might use. This column involves strategic knowledge as well as content knowledge. The area of behaviour represents the efforts made by students to seek help and to persist toward fulfilling the task. This area also represents the choices students need to make to determine their behaviour. The area of motivation involves the motivational beliefs, task values, interest, and affective reactions students possess regarding themselves and the task. Moreover, this area also represents the strategies students apply to control and regulate motivation. The area of context © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
3
relates to the control and regulation of the learning environment (Pintrich 2000). This detailed and domain-specific framework makes it possible to examine and determine the most appropriate support for the SRL processes. The key to this lies in the concept of scaffolding. Computer-mediated scaffolding
Owing to advancements in technology, scaffolding is no longer restricted to interactions between a human expert and a learner; such interactions have been extended to include the use of technological tools, resources, environments, and so on (Puntambekar & Hubscher 2005). This has resulted in an evolving definition of scaffolding, wherein the focus now lies on the design of tools to support student learning instead of on a description of interactions between an expert and a child or novice (Puntambekar & Hubscher 2005). Scaffolds have more recently been defined as tools, strategies, or guides that support students in gaining higher orders of understanding. Without such guidance, these levels of understanding would be beyond the reach of students (e.g. Saye & Brush 2002; Simons & Klein 2007). Scaffolding in open-ended learning environments refers to the process of supporting students in these environments (Hannafin et al. 1999). Four scaffolding types can be identified on the basis of their functions: conceptual, metacognitive, procedural, and strategic (Hannafin et al. 1999; Hill & Hannafin 2001). Conceptual scaffolds are defined as those that guide the learner in what to consider when a problem or task is already defined. Metacognitive scaffolds are different ways to think about a problem, or different strategies that need to be considered. Procedural scaffolds are those that guide learners in using the features available in openended learning environments. Strategic scaffolds are defined as guides on how to approach tasks or problems. This fourfold classification of scaffolding functions by Hannafin et al. (1999) has been used by other authors to create another level of classification. For instance, Yelland and Masters (2007) use the term ‘cognitive scaffolding’ to refer to the tools or techniques that support learners in the development of conceptual and procedural understanding. In this classification, a distinction is made between technical and affective scaffolding. Technical scaffolding relates to features of
4
a CBLE that act to mediate, and thereby influence, learning outcomes. Affective scaffolds are features that encourage students to focus on and persist with a task (Yelland & Masters 2007). Beyond these differences in functions, scaffolds can also differ in their mode of delivery. Scaffolds can be embedded or non-embedded, fixed or adaptive, hard or soft, or direct or indirect. Hard scaffolds are static or fixed scaffolds that are primarily technology-mediated (Saye & Brush 2002; Sharma & Hannafin 2007). Soft scaffolds are more customizable and negotiable, and they are provided by an expert (Saye & Brush 2002; Sharma & Hannafin 2007). This soft versus hard dimensioning of scaffolding is closely related to its dynamic and static dimensions (Kim & Hannafin 2010). Dynamic scaffolds enable interactive assessments of student progress and provide feedback based on learner needs (Kim & Hannafin 2010). Static scaffolds do not entail this type of interactive responsive relationship between the learner and the scaffolding source, but instead entail more fixed forms of guidelines, procedures, or information (Kim & Hannafin 2010). Both of these types can be presented in embedded or non-embedded forms. Embedded scaffolds are integrated in the learning environment in such a manner that learners are obliged to pay attention to them (Narciss et al. 2007). Non-embedded scaffolds are those whose use depends on the personal initiative of the students (Narciss et al. 2007). Following Friedrich and Mandl’s (1997) subdivision, hard and soft scaffolds can be presented directly if they instantly deliver an instruction, or indirectly if they guide the learning process (Narciss et al. 2007). Hadwin and Winne (2001) extended the discussion of this latter category; they referred to explicit scaffolds, which are more directive, and tacit scaffolds, which are less directive. This list continues with different concepts relating to scaffolding types and features (e.g. structure scaffolding, scenario scaffolding, fill-in scaffolding; Winnips 2000), illustrating that many different categorizations and concepts exist around scaffolding. Separating these concepts is complicated and difficult, especially when they are combined into specific scaffolding mechanisms such as structured overviews and pop-up windows (Hannafin et al. 1999; Jiang & Elen 2010). On the one hand, an intrinsic relationship seems to exist between these concepts and categorizations, while on the other, it also seems that decidedly different specificities are being focused upon.
A. Devolder et al.
Purpose
The literature shows that because of the specific systemic characteristics of current CBLEs, when learning in these environments, students need to apply more advanced skills that can be captured within the SRL framework (Azevedo 2005). It has been shown that support is necessary to realize the full potential of CBLEs and maximize their learning value. Scaffolding is a specific form of support for this context. As indicated above, there remains a lack of conceptual clarity regarding scaffolding. It is not clear which scaffolds specifically support the SRL processes when learning science using CBLEs, or how they do so. Thus, in this study, research that deals with the effectiveness of scaffolding the SRL processes will be analysed based on the context, task, and learner characteristics involved. Method and procedure
This research was conducted by means of a systematic literature review (Petticrew & Roberts 2005). First, some specific criteria were set to delineate our search (e.g. studies limited to the 2000s; studies in English). Second, inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify the most appropriate studies (Table 1). According to these criteria, different databases (i.e. Web of Science, ERIC, Science Direct, and Scirus) were searched using terms such as scaffold* AND self-regulated learning/self-regulat*. In addition, macro- (e.g. planning and monitoring) and micro- (e.g. judgment of learning and feeling of knowing) SRL processes were searched for (Azevedo 2008; Winters et al. 2008) in relation to the term scaffold* and/or support* (e.g. forethought AND scaffold*, prior knowledge activation AND scaffold*). This search finally resulted in 28 articles that met the criteria. This might seem a small number, and this may be because of the fact that in many studies, the scaffolds available in the CBLEs were described without including measures of student performance or without reporting these measures (Clarebout & Elen 2006; Winters et al. 2008). An overview of these studies is included in the Appendix. Results: a framework of effective scaffolds
The results of this study, presented in Table 2, will be integrated into the SRL framework discussed © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
5
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the systematic literature review process. Inclusion
Exclusion
Science-related school subjects (e.g. biology, physics, chemistry) (solely or in combination with a non-scientific domain) All educational levels (e.g. primary education)
Math and non-science-related school subjects (e.g. literacy and informatics) Educational training focusing on non-science-related school subjects (e.g. nursing schools, computer engineering) CBLEs related to games or virtual reality and mobile technology
CBLEs (e.g. open-ended hypermedia, hypertext, multimedia web-based, simulations) Dependent variable: knowledge gain Dependent variable: gaining SRL skills Scaffolds are computer-mediated Only human scaffolds or peer scaffolds [If studies contained human scaffolds or peer scaffolds in addition to the computer-mediated scaffolds, and if this condition did not interfere with the results of the computer-mediated scaffolds, these studies were also selected, but only the computer-mediated scaffolds were discussed.] Quantitative studies or mixed method studies Qualitative studies, conceptual studies (evidence of learning effects) Scaffolds focusing on SRL processes and learning Tools or support mechanisms referred to as scaffolds that performance. are not focusing on SRL processes and learning performance. [It is stated in the literature that there is not always a clear differentiation between support and scaffolding (Puntambekar & Hubscher 2005). Therefore, studies relating to the term support were also retrieved if this support was related to SRL processes and learning achievement.] CBLE, computer-based learning environment; SRL, self-regulated learning.
previously. This enables us to compare the results of the different scaffolds during the SRL processes, and it provides a clear overview of the effective scaffolds for each SRL phase and for each area. Regulation of student cognition
Most studies focus on the support or facilitation of cognitive activities. Some studies discussed the concept of SRL or metacognitive regulation in general terms, but these only focused on the area of cognition when discussing scaffolds (e.g. Manlove et al. 2007). In some studies, no direct reference is made to the concept of cognitive regulation. Instead, reference is made to processes that are encompassed by this concept (e.g. information-seeking strategies; Butler & Lumpe 2008). In some studies, the effects of using scaffolds are examined during all phases and across the different SRL areas. For instance, Moos and Azevedo (2008) examined the general effects of providing higher-order questions during the SRL processes, including the area of cognition. In the area of cognition, prompts are the most frequently used or examined scaffolds, albeit in varying forms, and these are used most often during the control phase, or more specifically, as support for the use of strategies. For instance, processing prompts such as © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
‘MEMORIZE whereof it depends whether an all-solid sinks, floats, or ascends in water. Therefore, you best take notes which illustrate relations between variables’, or generating prompts such as ‘FIND OUT whereof it depends whether an all-solid sinks, floats, or ascends in water. Therefore, you can best conduct experiments, in which you manipulate only ONE variable’ appeared to be effective scaffolding supports for the use of a learning strategy, which are respectively mapping and control of variables (Thillmann et al. 2009, p. 109). In some studies, prompts were found to be effective only when they were used in combination with other scaffolds, which were often also prompts. For instance, the use of strategy prompts, e.g. ‘Highlight one or more sentences that you think are important in this section’ (Lee et al. 2010, p. 633), resulted in significant learning effects if the learners could also make use of metacognitive feedback, provided in self-questioning prompts, and those such as ‘Incorrect! Now would be a good time to ask yourself if you have learned all the important information’ (Lee et al. 2010, p. 634). Kim and Pedersen (2011) found that self-questioning prompts combined with reflective prompts were also effective for the processes in this phase (i.e. hypothesis development) relative to a control group learning from a textbook instead of a CBLE. In this and some other studies, only the combined scaffolding use and effect was examined.
Diagrams (h) (8) Hints and cognitive feedback (p) (4) Self-explanation prompts, reason-justification prompts, and cues (s) (17) Template and written question prompts (s) (27, 28) Metacognitive feedback and strategy prompt (h) (14) Concept-map template (p) (16) Guiding questions (s) (22) Advice (prompts) (h) (20a); (s) (22) Generating prompts (s), Processing prompts (s) (24) Worked-out examples (s) (25) Template and written question prompts (s) (27, 28) Organizational feature (s) (15) Collaborative features (p), Maintenance features (p) (5) Self-explanation prompt and worked-out example (h) (7) Note-taking tool (h) (12) Reflective prompts (p), Expert self-questioning (p) (13) ‘Look back’ prompts (h) (9) Report template (s) (17)
Phase 2: monitoring
Phase 4: reaction and reflection
Phase 3: control
Guiding questions (h)1 (19)2 Concept-mapping task (s, h) (11) Preset goal hierarchy and goal description (s) (17, 18) ‘Plan ahead’ prompts (s) (9)
Phase 1: task definition and planning
Cognition
2
h: higher education; p: primary education; s: secondary education. The numbers in the table refer to the studies in the Appendix. SRL, self-regulated learning.
1
Phases of SRL
Areas of SRL
Table 2. An integrated framework for effective scaffolds in support of self-regulated learning processes.
Glossary, Context sensitive help (h) (23)
Guiding questions (h) (19)
Behaviour
Worked-out examples (s) (25) Mind-mapping tool (h) (26)
Searching features (p), Saving/viewing features (p) (5) Advice (prompts) (h) (20a) Self-explanation prompt and worked-out example (h) (7)
Motivation
Context
6 A. Devolder et al.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
Another example is the use of self-explanation prompts as cognitive scaffolds for control processes: these seem to be effective if used in combination with worked-out examples as scaffolds (Crippen & Earl 2007). No results were provided for the use of worked-out examples as individual scaffolds for processes of the control phase in this study, but positive effects were reported throughout our results, for instance, in comparison with a problemsolving task (e.g. Yaman et al. 2008). The use of tools that help students to regulate and/or structure information, such as note-makers, concept mapping tasks, or templates, has been studied regularly as a scaffolding mechanism in support of SRL processes in the area of cognition. For instance, Kauffman et al. (2011) showed that a note-maker tool positively influenced different types of note-taking and achievements. Providing concept mapping templates appears to be effective in scaffolding information processing strategies for learners (MacGregor & Lou 2005). Concept maps appear to be effective as scaffolds in the control phase and in planning and task definition, specifically as an activator of prior knowledge (Gurlitt & Renkl 2008). It was shown that using a research template effectively scaffolds processes in the reaction and reflection phase (Manlove et al. 2007), whereas using a template in combination with written question prompts scaffolds SRL processes in the monitoring and control phase, all within the area of cognition (Zydney 2008, 2010). Scaffolds such as providing higher-order questions and content-related goals seem to be effective for the first SRL phase. For instance, the effect of providing questions was examined (Moos & Azevedo 2008), the results of which were compared with a group of students who did not receive the questions. Although both groups of students learned under both conditions, the group receiving the questions scored significantly higher. Upon examining the number of self-regulatory processes used by both groups of students, it was found that the group receiving the questions as a scaffold used a significantly greater number of planning processes. Regulation of student behaviour
The positive effect of using guiding questions as a scaffold can also be found in the area of student behaviour (Moos & Azevedo 2008). More specifically, students who use guiding questions seem to apply a significantly greater number of processes for being aware of and © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
7
monitoring their effort. However, this finding is not substantiated by other studies in which guiding questions were used as a scaffold (e.g. Azevedo et al. 2004, 2005). In both these studies, students in the scaffolding group were even outperformed by students in the nonscaffolding group. While students in the first group showed significantly more help-seeking behaviour, this self-regulatory behaviour did not seem sufficient to achieve higher learning gains. Beyond the positive effects of guiding questions, not many other scaffolds could be found for the SRL processes in the area of student behaviour. A few studies examined the effect of using scaffolds in this area, and only two provided evidence for their effectiveness. The other scaffold for which results were presented is a combination of two scaffolding tools, glossary and contextsensitive help, which together function as a helpseeking tool. This tool was not intended by the authors (Stahl & Bromme 2009) to be a scaffolding tool, but was used as one by the students, and it led to a significant learning gain in all experiment groups as well as the control group. Regulation of student motivation
In the area of regulating student motivation, scaffolding support is provided either to influence the motivational perceptions and judgments of learners or to influence the control or regulation of these processes. For instance, in the phase of task-definition and planning, problemsolving advice is provided to students in the form of an animated pedagogical agent (Moreno et al. 2001). This agent helps to increase the interest of college students when using the programme as compared with students learning in an environment without this agent. For primary school students, evidence was shown (Butler & Lumpe 2008) that using scaffolds can increase the task value. These scaffolds are saving/viewing features that make it possible to save a website, to obtain results from previous searches, and to open past search windows. In addition to the effectiveness of these saving and viewing features as scaffolds for task value processes, positive correlations were shown between the use of searching features and the self-efficacy of the students (Butler & Lumpe 2008). It is important to note that the results in this area of this latter study did not clarify whether a change in positive motivational perceptions had a direct or indirect impact on student performance.
8
In addition to these positive effects of scaffolds on motivational processes, some negative effects were also found. For instance, it was shown that text editors can decrease student motivation in comparison with the use of a graphical editor (Zumbach 2009). Azevedo et al. (2004) showed that domain-specific guiding questions or hints can lead to significantly less stated interest in comparison with students using no scaffolds (Azevedo et al. 2004). Regulation of the context
Three studies have focused on the area of regulating the context, and these have found no scaffolds with significant effects. However, a detailed analysis of these studies revealed some noteworthy results. For instance, in the study by Moos and Azevedo (2008), conceptual scaffolds were provided in the form of higher-order questions. In this study, it was shown that students in the scaffolding group exercised a significantly greater number of motivational processes – more concrete judgments of task difficulty and effort – as compared with those in the control group. Moreover, no significant differences were found among these regulative processes themselves, implying that students in the scaffolding group had different perceptions during the task, but that this did not result in significantly different SRL behaviour. Although Moos and Azevedo (2008) described these processes as motivational, they are discussed in this section, because as can be seen in the integrated framework of SRL (based on Devolder et al. 2010), processes relating to task difficulty are presented as processes of context regulation. The legitimacy of a framework for scaffolding SRL
The scaffolding of student learning in a CBLE cannot be investigated in an isolated manner. Previous research has shown an interdependence among the use of scaffolds, context, nature of the learning task, learner characteristics, and the CBLE itself, all of which influence self-regulatory processes when learning with a CBLE (Azevedo & Hadwin 2005). Scaffolding design
As stated in our background section, scaffolds can differ in terms of the function (e.g. conceptual, strategic, procedural, metacognitive), form of delivery (e.g. embed-
A. Devolder et al.
ded, non-embedded, fixed, static), and the tool or mechanism with which they are presented (e.g. prompts, pedagogical agents). Of the studies discussed here, a small amount contained specific information about the function of the scaffolds. In most cases (e.g. Simons & Klein 2007; Moos & Azevedo 2008), the researchers chose conceptual scaffolds related to a problem-solving context. Conceptual scaffolds used in the studies found include the hints ‘name the components of blood’ and ‘describe the function of each type of cell found in blood’ (Azevedo et al. 2004, p. 350) and expert advice such as ‘since there are no roads in the sky, a road map certainly won’t do you any good. Remember that when you’re travelling by balloon, it’s the wind that will push your balloon along’ (Simons & Klein 2007, p. 50). Next to these conceptual scaffolds, some strategic scaffolds are used. An example of a strategic scaffold, again in the form of expert advice, is ‘One good place to start is by gathering information about the different kinds of balloons. There are basically three different kinds, but not all of them would be a good choice for trying to fly around the world’ (Simons & Klein 2007, p. 49). No concise conclusion can be made about the use of conceptual or strategic scaffolds, because these have been shown to have different levels of effectiveness depending on the type of scaffold and method of delivery. Almost one-third of the studies, such as those by Lee et al. (2010) and Lumpe and Butler (2002), provided detailed information regarding the mode of delivery of the scaffolds. The different formats include hard scaffolds (Simons & Klein 2007), fixed scaffolds (Azevedo et al. 2005), non-directive scaffolds (e.g. Thillmann et al. 2009), and indirect scaffolds (e.g. Stahl & Bromme 2009). Some studies (e.g. Moreno et al. 2001; Simons & Klein 2007) focused only on these specific characteristics. For instance, the effect of having a free choice of whether to use a scaffold was compared with the effect of being obliged to use one (e.g. Simons & Klein 2007: optional vs. required conditions). The results show a significant difference between these two groups in the way they organized project notebooks: students in the ‘required scaffolding’ group produced more organized notebooks than those in the ‘optional scaffolding’ group. The effect of presenting a certain scaffold via different tools was also examined. For example, providing spoken advice via an agent resulted in significantly higher scores in post-tests in comparison with providing this advice via written text (Moreno © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
et al. 2001). However, in most studies, no attention was paid to the design characteristics of scaffolds, which are of relevance in reaching conclusions about the research data. In addition, in most studies, there was no description of the design or function of the scaffolds, although some of these characteristics could be deduced. Learner characteristics
As stated in the background section, scaffolding use for SRL processes is influenced by the personal characteristics of the students. Many of the selected studies investigated the learner characteristic of prior knowledge. Either prior knowledge was measured to determine the knowledge gain of the students, or the students’ performance was controlled for this factor. Cuevas et al. (2002), for instance, observed that learners who possessed a mental model comparable to that of an expert outperformed those with a less expert model. Few studies have focused on the effect of prior knowledge on the use of scaffolds to foster SRL processes. Remarkably, prior knowledge was often not even measured (e.g. Zydney 2010). Occasionally, this occurred unintentionally, for instance, because of the fact that taking pre-test measures counts as a prior knowledge activator, and it will influence the results of a study on concept mapping tasks as prior knowledge activators (e.g. Gurlitt & Renkl 2008). In addition to prior knowledge, certain ability characteristics were taken into account. The use of diagrams as scaffolds was the most effective when the verbal comprehension ability of the learner was low (e.g. Cuevas et al. 2002). Additionally, the relationship between using prompts, a hypothesis menu, or a step guidance menu as a scaffold and abstract reasoning abilities was examined, but no differential effects were found (e.g. Chang et al. 2008). In our results section, motivation is discussed as a regulatory process; however, in most cases, motivation is studied as an independent variable for SRL (Zimmerman & Schunk 2007). For instance, motivation was measured through self-estimation, in which the students were asked ten questions about the usefulness of the support (Stahl & Bromme 2009). Although no difference could be found between the groups in terms of self-estimation, the authors described motivation as one of the main factors that differed among students. Finally, it can be stated that few studies paid much attention to the characteristics of the learner (e.g. Davis & Linn 2000; Manlove et al. 2007, 2009). © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
9
Task characteristics
In the selected studies, certain task characteristics were focused upon. More specifically, the type of task received by the students was focused on. For instance, it was shown that when diagrams were used as a scaffold, students scored significantly higher in integrative posttest measures, whereas no significant knowledge gain could be found when using declarative knowledge measures (e.g. Cuevas et al. 2002). A different scaffolding effect was found between retention tasks and transfer tasks. Moreno et al. (2001) found that positive effects resulted from the use of scaffolds with transfer tasks but not with retention tasks, though positive learning effects were found when the latter entailed difficult problems. The studies showed that the type of learning task has an influence, and that these are related to the learner characteristics. The effects of the scaffolds seem to vary depending on the prior knowledge of the students and the task difficulty. For instance, it was shown that more experienced learners benefited from less coherent prior knowledge concept mapping activation tasks, whereas the less experienced learners benefited from more coherent knowledge concept mapping activation tasks (Gurlitt & Renkl 2008). Discussion and conclusion
This study aimed to address the problem that current CBLEs demand SRL skills that many students do not possess. Scaffolds are being provided in CBLEs to enable students to learn effectively. They support students in SRL processes, although it remains unclear which scaffolds provide support for which SRL processes. This study presents an overview of which scaffolds provide effective support for SRL processes and for each SRL area. In this section, these results are interpreted as they relate to future designs and research in the field of SRL with CBLEs. Our findings extend current literature in four respects, which are discussed in the following. First, regarding the central aim of this study, it can be concluded that, especially in the area of cognition, prompts were effective scaffolds for these processes. This presence of effective prompts in the area of cognition is not surprising, because prompts have generally been found to be effective throughout the literature on scientific knowledge integration and transfer (Kauffman
10
et al. 2008). A deeper understanding of these results shows that most prompts can be found in the control phase, which is again unsurprising because prompts originally served as strategy activators (Berthold et al. 2007). A closer examination of these strategy prompts indicates that although different names are given to these multiple prompts, they are often essentially the same (e.g. generating prompts, self-explanation prompts, processing prompts, hints). The content of the prompts is often determined by the need to provide students with either domain-specific or domain-general information (Bulu & Pedersen 2010). Importantly, the literature states that domain-general prompts are unsuccessful in fostering knowledge integration when used individually (Bulu & Pedersen 2010). This might explain why, in many of our studies, certain scaffolds seemed to be effective when used in combination with others. The scaffolds that are individually ineffective are indeed domain-general (e.g. Lee et al. 2010), whereas the complementary and effective scaffolds are both domaingeneral and domain-specific (e.g. Crippen & Earl 2007). Second, a much smaller number of scaffolds were found in studies examining how to support the SRL processes in the other three areas: motivation, behaviour, and context. It seems that no consistency can be found among the scaffolds within these areas. Moreover, little correspondence seems to be prevalent when analysing the number of scaffolds per phase of SRL (i.e. horizontal analysis). For instance, within the phase of task definition and planning, the scaffolds that appear to be effective in the area of cognition are different compared with the scaffolds in the area of motivation. For the control phase, it appears that providing a mind-mapping tool as well as providing worked-out examples have a positive influence on the regulation of motivational strategies (i.e. Yaman et al. 2008). The use of workedout examples is also effective for the processes in the area of cognition in this phase (i.e. Zumbach 2009), but no other similar scaffolds could be found. A possible explanation might be that students do not execute the SRL processes separately or in a hierarchical or linear order (Pintrich 2000; Lajoie & Azevedo 2006). Moreover, Pintrich (2000) states that not all SRL phases need to be experienced during a learning task. Some processes might even occur simultaneously or an interaction might appear between different SRL processes (Pintrich 2000). This makes it more difficult in research to capture all the influence that scaffolds might have on
A. Devolder et al.
the processes throughout the phases of SRL. As stated in the result section, some studies did not focus on the specific SRL processes (e.g. Moos & Azevedo); instead, they examined the effects of the scaffolds from a broader perspective. Studies such as these found effects of scaffolds over different phases and areas of SRL. In order to determine the effectiveness of scaffolds on overlapping SRL processes throughout the phases and areas, it is necessary to gain a very clear understanding of how they are regulated at different levels and in the different areas of SRL (Steffens 2001). According to Steffens (2001), SRL models are not always detailed, so although one may have a relatively clear overview of how students self-regulate their learning, there is doubt as to how to implement this knowledge in CBLEs. Therefore, more detailed SRL models are required, and these models need to be applied in the context of CBLEs (Azevedo 2005). By doing so, more scaffolding results might be found for the non-cognitive areas of SRL: motivation, behaviour, and context. Presently, these fields receive little attention in comparison with, for instance, metacognition and cognition (Zimmerman & Tsikalas 2005). Third, while more than half of our selected studies showed scaffolds to be effective as support mechanisms for SRL processes, the results described here need to be interpreted with care because both conceptual and measurement issues can be found throughout these studies. For instance, in some of the studies discussed, scaffolds are presented as groups (e.g. Butler & Lumpe 2008). Although this might lead to positive results (Puntambekar & Hubscher 2005), it is difficult to interpret the individual contribution of each scaffold (e.g. Manlove et al. 2007, 2009; Simons & Klein 2007; Kauffman et al. 2011). This includes studies in which an experiment is set up to compare the effect of a certain scaffold with its effect in combination with another scaffold (e.g. Davis & Linn 2000: activity prompt vs. activity prompt with self-monitoring prompt; Lee et al. 2010: strategy prompt vs. strategy prompt with metacognitive feedback). When examining a combination of computerbased scaffolds with teacher-based scaffolds or noncomputer-based scaffolds, the value of the context of each of these types of scaffolds again remains unclear. For instance, Kim and Pedersen (2011) examined the effectiveness of two computer-based scaffolds, in addition to the use of a paper and pencil scaffold. In such studies, it is similarly difficult to isolate the unique value of the scaffolds. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
In some other studies, students worked in dyads or triads, or could make use of the teacher’s help when in need of support. When learners received a response to a question they had asked to their peers or teacher regarding the content or learning process, this could again be considered a scaffold. This is not taken into account when interpreting many of the results that were found, although it affects learning outcomes (e.g. Simons & Klein 2007). Moreover, in future research, awareness is generally needed regarding the characteristics of the CBLE itself, which have a scaffolding impact on the learning process, as well as on other possible influences in the experimental setting, which might be incorrectly related to the scaffold that is being examined. Finally, the aspect of fading is considered in the original definition of scaffolding. In this sense, scaffolding is a form of calibrated support, i.e. support that is fine-tuned on the basis of an ongoing diagnosis of the child’s knowledge and skills (Puntambekar & Hubscher 2005). With this kind of support, the student comes to internalize the learning processes until the support can be faded or even removed completely (Pea 2004). It has been stated in the literature that it is this aspect of fading, in particular, that differentiates scaffolding from the other types of support (Pea 2004; Sharma & Hannafin 2007). This study confirms that the difference between scaffolding and support becomes less clear where the original description of scaffolding is extended into CBLEs. With regard to the studies analysed herein, fading is not practiced in most of the studies for the following reasons. First, often, only one measurement moment was planned. Second, some studies refer to the concept of scaffolding as support provided by technology but do not refer to the aspect of fading. In a few studies, reference is made to the use of adaptive scaffolds or human tutors to apply fading; however, in this review, it was determined that only scaffolds that were computer supported and not human or peer supported would be included. According to Belland et al. (2008), fading of hard scaffolds, for instance, could be students indicating that they do not need support. Although there is proof of the effectiveness of scaffolds to support the SRL processes, more work is needed to determine whether this relationship exists for all of them. This discussion suggests certain implications that need further consideration in future research. First, future research must further examine the differ© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
11
ence in the effectiveness of domain-specific scaffolds versus domain-general scaffolds (Bulu & Pedersen 2010). Are domain-specific scaffolds indeed individually more effective, and are domain-general scaffolds more effective if used in combination with other scaffolds? In general, future research must pay sufficient attention to the different functions and types of scaffolds. For instance, are conceptual or strategic scaffolds effective when used individually, or are these scaffolds equally effective for all areas of SRL? This brings us to a second recommendation for future research, namely, the concept of multiple scaffolding (Zydney 2010). When examining the effectiveness of scaffolds, it must be clear whether this effectiveness can be related to one scaffold or to a combination of scaffolds. Some results in this study showed that a combination of scaffolds can provide the best results, and thus, in future research, both multiple and unique scaffolding must be focused upon. Third, future research must focus on how fading can be applied in CBLEs. For instance, it should be examined whether the fading of domain-general scaffolds might help students internalize SRL processes, for instance, by letting students decide upon the scaffolds they need, or by allowing students the option of not using any scaffold at all (e.g. Belland et al. 2008). In the case of fading domain-specific scaffolds, future research must examine how changes in students’ mental models can be appropriately determined. Fourth, when examining the effectiveness of scaffolds on the SRL processes, studies should use SRL models that enable researchers to examine SRL in its entirety. This will result in a more comprehensive model of scaffolding in CBLEs that might provide more detailed and clear information to those designing CBLEs. Finally, science is a topic that has received relatively more attention in this research field as compared with other domains (e.g. history, language, mathematics). It might be interesting if future research also focuses on these other domains. A comparison of the different SRL processes among different domains might then be possible. To conclude, it can be stated that this framework provides a general overview of scaffolds that are effective in SRL processes when students learn science with CBLEs, and it enables a comparison of these different effective relationships. The study also shows that it is important to consider the specific learning context, i.e. the context of the CBLE and the characteristics of scaffolding, students, and tasks.
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C. & Greene, J. A. (2005)
Biesinger, K. & Crippen, K. (2010)
Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N. & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt (2005) Butler, K. A. & Lumpe, A. (2008)
2
3
4
Crippen, K. J. & Earl, B. L. (2007) Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M. & Oser, R. L. (2002) Davis, E. A. & Linn, M. C. (2000)
7
Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M. & McDaniel, B. (2007)
Gurlitt, J. & Renkl, A. (2008)
10
11
9
8
Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y. & Sung, Y. T. (2008)
6
5
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. & Seibert, D. (2004)
1
Study Ten subgoals (human tutor)
Ten domain-specific subgoals (human tutor)
Undergraduates (N = 51; M = 22 years)
7th grade (N = 58; M = 12.4 years) 10th grade (N = 53; M = 15.5 years) Undergraduates (N = 184)
Spoken hints (hint button), online rating tool (pop-up windows), and note-taking facility with questions and hints (pop-up-window) Concept map
11th–13th grade (N = 43; M = 17.6 years); university physics majors (N = 45; M = 21.6 years)
Plan ahead prompts and look back prompts
Undergraduates (N = 33)
Undergraduate students (N = 61) 8th grade
Chemistry majors (N = 120) Self-explanation prompt and worked-out examples Diagrams
Search, saving and viewing, maintenance, and organizational and collaborative features (and detailed scaffolding instances) Experiment prompting, hypothesis menu, and step guidance
5th grade (N = 27)
Junior high school (N = 231)
Hints and cognitive feedback
5th grade (N = 45)
Norm-referenced feedback and self-referenced feedback
Scaffold
Participants
Planning (hints), metacognitive monitoring (on-line ratings) and reflection (note-taking facility combined with questions about reliability of site) of critical stance Prior knowledge activation
Planning and reflection
Meta-comprehension accuracy
Regulation of behaviour (experiment prompting, guidance in experiment) and hypothesis formulation Self-efficacy and self-explanation
Information-seeking strategies and motivation
Monitoring (indirect reflection and motivation)
Goal orientation, self-efficacy, and worked-example use as SRL strategy
Strategy use, planning, monitoring and handling task difficulties, and interest Strategy use, planning, monitoring and handling task difficulties, and interest
SRL processes
Inquiry learning
Mental model development Inquiry learning
Simulation-based learning
Project-based science model (inquiry and technology)
Hypertext
Web-based learning system Powerpoint tutorial with hyperlinks Knowledge integration environment
Web-based worked-out example learningenvironment Computer-based agent
Multimedia learning
Learning by teaching
Hypermedia
Hypermedia
Type of CBLE
Mental model development
Mental model development
Instructional method
Summary of computer-based learning environments and scaffolds used in the studies included in this review study
Appendix
SEEK tutor
Mildred
Training tutorial
Simulation-based learning environment
Artemis
Multi-agent environment
Encarta
Encarta
CBLE
Motion on an inclined plane
Plate tectonics
Principles of flight Thermodynamics and light
Chemistry
Optics
Photosynthesis
River ecosystems
Chemistry
Circulatory system
Circulatory system
Content
12 A. Devolder et al.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Kim, H. J. & Pedersen, S. (2011) Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y. & Grabowski, B. L. (2010)
Lumpe, A. T. & Butler, K. (2002)
MacGregor & Lou (2005)
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2007)
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2009)
Moos, D. C. & Azevedo, R. (2008)
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. & Lester, J. C. (2001)
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. & Lester, J. C. (2001)
Pol, H. J., Harskamp, E. G. & Suhre, C. J. M. (2008)
13
15
16
17
18
19
20a
20b
21
14
Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R. & Yang, Y. S. (2011)
12
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Animated pedagogical agent providing highly contextualized problem-solving advice Animated pedagogical agent providing highly contextualized problem-solving advice Hints; worked-out-examples
College students (N = 44)
5th year (N = 59)
7th grade (N = 48)
Undergraduate students (N = 43, M = 21.53 years)
High school (N = 61, age = 16–18 years)
Process model, preset goal hierarchy (planning), hints, cues, prompts to promote monitoring through note taking, report template (evaluation) Collapsible goal tree, hints, note feature, and lab report template Guiding questions (higher order)
Note-taking tool (conventional, outline, or matrix) Reflective prompts and expert self-questioning Generative learning strategy prompt (questions) and metacognitive feedback (uses self-questioning or prompting) 5 features: search, saving and viewing, maintenance, organizational, and collaborative features Concept-map template
Secondary education (N = 70; age = 16–18 years)
5th grade (N = 22)
High school 9th and 10th grade (N = 43)
Undergraduate student (N = 223)
6th grade students (N = 172)
Undergraduate (N = 30)
Problem solving abilities (analyse, explore, plan, implement, and verify)
Surface and deep processing, sense-making, and motivation
Strategy use, planning, monitoring and handling task difficulties, and interest Surface and deep processing, sense-making, and motivation
Cognitive regulation: planning, monitoring, and evaluation
Problem-solving
Discovery learning
Computer-supported programme
Multimedia (constructivist)
Multimedia (constructivist)
Hypermedia
Mental model development Discovery learning
Simulation
Simulation
Web-based learning
Web-based programme Computer-based learning environment
Website
Inquiry
Inquiry
Inquiry learning
Project-based science model (inquiry and technology)
Information-seeking strategies
Information processing skills (free recall of information – organizing newly acquired knowledge) Cognitive regulation: planning, monitoring, and evaluation
Problem-based learning Generative learning
Regulation, monitoring, and evaluation Cognitive control and metacognitive control
Information collection
PhysHint
Design-a-plant microworld
Design-a-plant microworld
Encarta
Co-lab
Co-lab
WebQuest
Artemis
Animal investigator
Plant features versus environmental features Plant features versus environmental features Forces
Circulatory system
Fluid dynamics
Physics
Endangered species
Photosynthesis
Human heart
Animals
Classification of wildcats
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES 13
Stahl, E. & Bromme, R. (2009)
Thillmann, H., Künsting, J., Wirth, J. & Leutner, D. (2009) Yaman, M., Nerdel, C. & Bayrhuber, H. (2008)
23
24
Zumbach, J. (2009)
Zydney, J. M. (2010)
Zydney, J. M. (2008)
26
27
28
25
Simons, K. D. & Klein, J. D. (2007)
22
Study
Appendix Continued
Guiding questions, expert advice
Strategic prompts, in the form advice, graphic advance organizers Find out versus memorize
7th grade (N = 111)
University students (N = 51; M = 21.5 years)
Graphical mind-mapping tool, text-editor (pro-con) Organization tool: research plan template: headings and question prompts; higher-order thinking tool: status report: question prompts Organization tool: research plan template: headings and question prompts; higher-order thinking tool: status report: question prompts
University (N = 60; M = 26.4 years) 10th grade (N = 79; age = 15–16 years)
10th grade (N = 79; age = 15–16 years)
Problem-solving task – feedback, worked-out examples
11th–13th grade (N = 182; M = 17.28 years)
Secondary education (N = 95; M = 14.69 years)
Scaffold
Participants
Organize, question formulation, hypothesis formulation, and monitoring
Elaboration of the content and motivation Organize, question formulation, hypothesis formulation, and monitoring
Interest
Strategy use
Help-seeking behaviour and metacognitive monitoring
Information-seeking strategies, information management, and note-taking
SRL processes
CFT-based
CFT-based
Argumentation
Scientific discovery
Problem-based learning
Instructional method
Hypermedia
Computer-based learning environment Computer-based learning environment Simulation programme
Hypermedia
Type of CBLE
Pollution solution
Pollution solution
Plant identification online
Up, up & away (hypermedia)
CBLE
Air pollution
Respiratory chain of the inner mitochondrial membrane Marine pollution by oil Air pollution
Buoyancy in fluids
Meteorological concepts, math, geography, and language arts Plant identification
Content
14 A. Devolder et al.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
References Azevedo R. (2005) Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of SRL. Educational Psychologist 40, 199–209. Azevedo R. (2008) The role of self-regulated learning about science with hypermedia. In Recent Innovations in Educational Technology that Facilitate Student Learning (eds D.H. Robinson & G. Schraw), p. 140. Information Age Publishing Inc, Charlotte, NC. Azevedo R. & Hadwin A.F. (2005) Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science 33, 367– 379. Azevedo R., Cromley J.G. & Seibert D. (2004) Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29, 344–370. Azevedo R., Cromley J.G., Winters F.I., Moos D.C. & Greene J.A. (2005) Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ SRL with hypermedia. Instructional Science 33, 381–412. Belland B.R., Glazewski K.D. & Richardson J.C. (2008) A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development 56, 401–422. Bernacki M.L., Aguilar A.C. & Byrnes J.P. (2011) Selfregulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments: an opportunity-propensity analysis. In Fostering Self-Regulated Learning through ICT (eds G. Dettori & D. Persico), pp. 1–26. Information Science Reference, New York, NY. Berthold K., Nückles M. & Renkl A. (2007) Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction 17, 564–577. Biesinger K. & Crippen K. (2010) The effects of feedback protocol on self-regulated learning in a web-based worked example environment. Computers & Education 55, 1470– 1482. Biswas G., Leelawong K., Schwartz D., Vye N. & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt (2005) Learning by teaching: a new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence 19, 363–392. Bulu S.T. & Pedersen S. (2010) Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development 58, 507–530.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
15
Butler K.A. & Lumpe A. (2008) Student use of scaffolding software: relationships with motivation and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology 17, 427–436. Chang K.E., Chen Y.L., Lin H.Y. & Sung Y.T. (2008) Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education 51, 1486–1498. Clarebout G. & Elen J. (2006) Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior 22, 389–411. Crippen K.J. & Earl B.L. (2007) The impact of web-based worked examples and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-efficacy. Computers & Education 49, 809–821. Cuevas H.M., Fiore S.M. & Oser R.L. (2002) Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: use of diagrams in computer-based training environments. Instructional Science 30, 433–464. Dabbagh N. & Kitsantas A. (2005) Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science 33, 513–540. Davis E.A. & Linn M.C. (2000) Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22, 819–837. Devolder A., van Braak J. & Tondeur J. (2010) Supporting self-regulation in computer-based learning environments: a systematic review of the impact of scaffolding. Paper presented at the European Conference of Educational Research (ECER), Helsinki, Finland. Dignath C., Buettner G. & Langfeldt H.P. (2008) How can primary school students learn SRL strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review 3, 101–129. Friedrich H.F. & Mandl H. (1997) Analyse und Förderung selbstgesteuerten Lernens. [Analysis and support of selfregulated learning]. In Enzyklopädie für Psychologie, Themenbereich D, Pädagogische Psychologie Bd. Psychologie der Erwachsenenbildung (ed. F.E. Weinert), pp. 237–276. Hogrefe, Göttingen. Gerjets P., Scheiter K. & Schuh K. (2008) Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development 56, 73–92. Graesser A., Wiley J., Goldman S., O’Reilly T., Jeon M. & McDaniel B. (2007) SEEK Web tutor: fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning 2, 89–105. Gurlitt J. & Renkl A. (2008) Are high-coherent concept maps better for prior knowledge activation? Differential effects of concept mapping tasks on high school vs. univer-
16
sity students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, 407–419. Hadwin A.F. & Winne P.H. (2001) CoNoteS2: a software tool for promoting self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation 7, 313–334. Hannafin M., Land S.M. & Oliver K. (1999) Open learning environments: foundations, methods, and models. In Instructional Design Theories and Models (ed. C. Reigeluth), pp. 115–140. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Hill J.R. & Hannafin M.J. (2001) Teaching and learning in digital environments: the resurgence of resourcebased learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 49, 1042–1629. Iiyoshi T. & Hannafin M. (1998) Cognitive tools for openended learning environments: theoretical and implementation perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, San Diego, CA. Jacobson M.J. & Azevedo R. (2008) Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: theoretical, empirical, and design issues. Educational Technology Research and Development 56, 1–3. Jiang L. & Elen J. (2010) Instructional effectiveness of scaffolds: roles of learner variables. Doctoral Dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Jiang L., Elen J. & Clarebout G. (2009) The relationships between learner variables, tool-usage behavior and performance. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 501–509. Kauffman D.F., Zhao R. & Yang Y. (2011) Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology 4, 1–10. Kauffman D.F., Xun G., Kui X. & Ching-Huei C. (2008) Prompting in web-based environments: supporting selfmonitoring and problem solving skills in college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 38, 115–137. Kim H.J. & Pedersen S. (2011) Advancing young adolescents’ hypothesis-development performance in a computersupported and problem-based learning environment. Computers & Education 57, 1780–1789. Kim M.C. & Hannafin M.J. (2010) Scaffolding problem solving in technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs): bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education 56, 403–417. Lajoie S.P. & Azevedo R. (2006) Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd edition (eds P. Alexander & P. Winne), pp. 803–821. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Land S. & Hannafin M. (2000) Student-centered learning environments. In Theoretical Foundations of Learning
A. Devolder et al.
Environments (eds D. Jonassen & S. Land), pp. 1–23. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Lee H.W., Lim K.Y. & Grabowski B. (2010) Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development 58, 629–648. Lumpe A.T. & Butler K. (2002) The information seeking strategies of high school science students. Research in Science Education 32, 549–566. MacGregor S.K. & Lou Y. (2005) Web-based learning: how task scaffolding and web site design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37, 161–175. Manlove S., Lazonder A.W. & de Jong T. (2007) Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning 2, 141–155. Manlove S., Lazonder A.W. & de Jong T. (2009) Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 795–803. Moos D.C. & Azevedo R. (2008) Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science 36, 203– 231. Moreno R., Mayer R., Spires H. & Lester J. (2001) The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction 19, 177–213. Narciss S., Proske A. & Koerndle H. (2007) Promoting selfregulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 1126–1144. Pea R. (2004) The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13, 423–451. Petticrew M. & Roberts H. (2005) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publications, Malden. Pintrich P.R. (2000) The role of goal orientation in selfregulated learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (eds M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner), pp. 451–502. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Pol H.J., Harskamp E.G. & Suhre C.J.M. (2008) The effect of timing of instructional support in a computer-supported problem-solving program for students in secondary physics education. Computers in Human Behaviour 24, 1156– 1178. Puntambekar S. & Hubscher R. (2005) Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist 40, 1–12.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES
Saye J.W. & Brush T. (2002) Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 50, 77–96. Scheiter K. & Gerjets P. (2007) Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review 19, 285– 307. Schraw G. (2007) The use of computer-based learning environments for understanding and improving self-regulation. Metacognition and Learning 2, 169–176. Shapiro A.M. (2008) Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development 56, 29–44. Sharma P. & Hannafin M.J. (2007) Scaffolding in technologyenhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments 15, 27–46. Simons K.D. & Klein J.D. (2007) The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science 35, 41–72. Stahl E. & Bromme R. (2009) Not everybody needs help to seek help: surprising effects of metacognitive instructions to foster help-seeking in an online-learning environment. Computers & Education 53, 1020–1028. Steffens K. (2001) Self-regulation and computer-based learning. Anuario de Psicologia 32, 77–94. Thillmann H., Kunsting J., Wirth J. & Leutner D. (2009) Is it merely a question of ‘what’ to prompt or also ‘when’ to prompt? The role of point of presentation time of prompts in self-regulated learning. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie 23, 105–115. Winne P.H. & Hadwin A.F. (1998) Studying as SRL. In Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (eds D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. Graesser), pp. 277–304. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Winnips J.C. (2000) Support of active, self-reliant learning via the WWW by means of cue scaffolding. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and LifeLong Learning 10, 296–313.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
17
Winters F., Greene J. & Costich C. (2008) Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: a critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review 20, 429– 444. Yaman M., Nerdel C. & Bayrhuber H. (2008) The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations. Computers & Education 51, 1784–1794. Yelland N. & Masters J. (2007) Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education 48, 362– 382. Zimmerman B.J. (1989) A social cognitive view of selfregulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81, 329–339. Zimmerman B.J. (2001) Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis. In Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement – Theoretical Perspectives (eds B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk), pp. 1–37. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Zimmerman B.J. & Schunk D.H. (2007) Motivation: an essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning (eds D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman), pp. 1–30. Routledge, New York, NY. Zimmerman B.J. & Tsikalas K.E. (2005) Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist 40, 267–271. Zumbach J. (2009) The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 811–817. Zydney J.M. (2008) Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem. Journal of Educational Computing Research 38, 353–385. Zydney J.M. (2010) The effect of multiple scaffolding tools on students’ understanding, consideration of different perspectives, and misconceptions of a complex problem. Computers & Education 54, 360–370.
