Tool Use in Computer Learning

Environments: Enhancing Learning?

Norma A. Juarez Collazo, Jan Elen, Geraldine Clarebout

Computer learning environments Support learning (Dillon and Jobst, 2005) Support

devices: Tools (Zidney 2008, Viau & Larivee, 1993)

Introduction

Glossaries, lesson outlines, adjunct questions, concept maps, study guides, among others.

Support devices: Tools

Problematic

Learner characteristics

Tool characteristics

Tool use

Classification is based on the kind of support the tool offers (Lust et al., 2012)

•Information tools. Give information to be learned or used (lessons outlines).

• Cognitive tools. Enhance, extend or augment thinking (Adjunct questions, concept maps).

• Scaffold tools. Guide learning efforts on what to consider, how to think (Study guides).

Types of tools

Tool presentation/embeddedness

• Forced or optional (Schnotz & Heiss, 2009) embedded or non-embedded (Clarebout & Elen, 2006)

Tool interventions

•Tool interventions increase, encourage or enhance tool use (Clarebout & Elen, 2010; Lee & Lehman, 1993)

•Advice (Clarebout & Elen, 2008), •Instructional cuing (Lee & Lehman, 1993) ,• Agents (Moreno, 2005)•Explanation of tool functionality (Juarez

Collazo et al, 2012) among others.

Self-regulation skills• Self-regulation knowledgeability learners have about their learning needs, the learning task, the functionalities of the tools and the relationships between the tools and learning (Elen & Clarebout, 2006; Elen, Lowyck, & Proost, 1996; Perkins, 1985). • Self-regulators perform better than not self-regulated learners (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006) research has focused on increasing self-regulation ( e.g. Lenne et al., 2008).

• What about the influence of the self-regulation skills on tool use?

Self-regulation skills

•Relationship between the tool usage and learner’s self-regulated learning skills (J. A. Greene & Azevedo, 2007).

• When tools are used, self-regulators obtain significant higher learning gains vs. non-self-regulators (Lajoie & Azevedo, 2006; Pressley, Snyder, Levin, Murray, & Ghatala, 1987).

•High self-regulators and more quality tool use (Clarebout, et al., 2010).

•Quantity of tool use: The frequency learners access tools and/or the time they spend on the tools (Zumbach, 2009; Clarebout, et al., 2010).

•Quality of tool use: How students use the tools and whether the usage is in line with the instructional intentions of particular tools (Zumbach, 2009; Jiang & Elen 2011)

Tool use & learning

Problematic

Learner characteristics

Tool characteristics

Tool use

?

Research questions

Tool embeddedness

(No) Explanation of tool

functionality

Self-regulation skills

Quantity (time & frequency) and quality of

tool use

Learning outcomes

(performance)

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

RQ4

Condition

1. Do the different conditions contribute to learners’ performance?

2. What is the effect of tool embeddedness (embedded vs. non-embedded) and the (no) explanation of tool functionality on quantity and quality tool use?

3. What is the effect of self-regulated learning skills on quantity and quality of tool use?

4. Do quantity and quality of tool use influence performance?

Research questions

Participants

•117 students from a preparatory master program in Educational studies

•82% female

•23 years old (SD=4.18)

Design

Embedded/ Explained Functionality (N=23)

Non-embedded/ Explained Functionality (N=24)

Embedded/ Non-explained functionality (N=23)

Non-embedded/ Non-explained functionality (N=24)

Control condition (N=23)

• Computer Learning environment •Hypertext: Why water is essential (Raes et al 2009)

• 1, 544 words, two figures, five sections.

• Five times one cognitive tool five semi structured concepts maps (one after each section) with three blank boxes each.

Instruments

Every concept map will bring up a part of your knowledge. By completing the

concept map, you will be able to make a better connection between the

information provided and your daily life. You knowledge will also become more meaningful and as a consequence the

chances that you will do better in the test will be bigger

• Self-regulation skills: selection of the LIST questionnaire (Wild & Schiefele, 1994). Six out of the eleven elements applicable to individually studying learning materials:

•organization, •elaboration, •repetition, •monitoring/planning, •critical thinking and •effort

6-point Likert scale

(1 totally agree; 6 totally disagree)

Instruments

• Organization (α=.80) : activities that are performed to reorganize learning material to perform optimally (e.g., I make tables, figures or drawings to structure course content better). •Elaboration (α=.86) : activities that are appointed towards a deeper understanding of the learning material (e.g., I try to make connections with related topics). •Critical thinking (α=.82) : activities that deepen the understanding of the material through a critical analysis of statements and justification contexts (e.g., What I learn, I examine critically).

Instruments

• Repetition (α=.71) : the memorization of facts and rules by simply repeating (e.g. I memorize the text content by repeating). • Monitoring/planning (α=.73) : "planning" and "monitoring" that serve to control the current self-regulation learning processes (e.g., Before I start to study my learning material, I think about how I can proceed most effectively). • Effort (α=.77) : The extent to which increased efforts will be actively used to achieve academic and learning goals (e.g., I don’t give up, even if the material is complex).

Instruments

• Pre-test: learners’ differences among conditions regarding prior knowledge. Multiple-choice-question test, max. 10 points.

•Post test: performance. 16 items: seven multiple-choice items, three fill-in-the-blank sentences six items true or false statements, max.16 points.

Instruments

•Quantity of tool use (log files): •Frequency. Clicks to access tools (non-embedded conditions only). •Time. The proportional time (in seconds) on the tool (all conditions).

•Quality of tool use (text files): •Answers in the blank boxes (3 per semi structured concept map) per concept map (N=5), max. 15 points.

Instruments

• First session:•Self-regulation skills questionnaire

•Second session:•Pre-test• Computer learning environment• Post-test

Procedure

• No difference in relation to prior knowledgeF(4,112) 1.20 p =.32 η²=.04.

Results

• No difference in relation to performance F(4,112) 1.38 p =.25 η²=.05.

RQ1: Conditions and performance

Time on tool: F(3,89) 8.94

p <.001 η²=.23.

RQ2: Tool embeddedness and (no) explained tool functionality on tool use

β= -.25, t = -2.27,

p<.05

RQ3: Self-regulation skills (organization) on tool use

β=.35, t = 1.87,

p<.05

RQ3: Self-regulation skills (elaboration) on tool use

RQ4: Tool use and performance

(1) Performance (2) Performanceall conditions non-embedded conditions

B SE B β B SE B β

(Constant) 11.04 1.26 (Constant)Quantity (time on tools) .002 .001 .26* Quantity (frequency) -.07 .03 .36*Quality tool use .13 .10 .13Note (1): R² = .08, p <.05.

Note (2): R² = .13, p<.05 .

* p <.05 r =. 36, p<.05

Summary of results

Tool embeddedness

(No) Explanation of tool

functionality

Self-regulation: Organization

Quantity (time) Learning

outcomes (performance)

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

RQ4

Condition

Quantity (frequency)

Quality of tool use

Self-regulation: Elaboration

• No difference between conditions and performance. Martens et al (1997) saw no difference between a CBLE and a no CBLE. Zumbach (2009) observed no difference among conditions over performance but in intrinsic motivation this study?

• The explanation of tool functionality stronger than tool embeddedness

•The explanation of tool functionality and its negative effect on time spent on tool the role of experienced learners?

Discussion

•Effective performance results from the interaction of learners’ processes and –stimulus materials- tools (Merrill, 1980).The explanation affected internal processes tainted tool use.

• Imbalance between structure and freedom? (Beishuizen, 2012)

Discussion

• Indirect negative relationship of explained tool functionality on performance.•Significant relationship between self-regulation skills and the time spent on the tool. Indirect effect on performance.

• Organization and time negative relationship: strong organizers do not need tools• Elaboration and time positive relationship: learners towards deeper understanding by using tools more time on tools

Discussion

•Time on tool positive effect on performance (12.96% of variance)

•Learners need enough time

• Frequency of tool use negative effect on performance: going back and forth had a negative effect (Jiang & Elen, 2012; Cerdan et al, 2009)

• Frequency correlated to quality of tool use. Non –embedded tools may hamper performance?

• Quality of tool use: a valid measure?

Discussion

• The role of experienced learners?• The explanation of tool functionality.• Self-regulation skills• Time on tools…• Before developing self-regulation with CLE’s isn’t it necessary to see at what level learners are?

Conclusion

Questions, comments?

norma.juarez@ppw.kuleuven.be

http://www.kuleuven.be/wieiswie/en/person/00064263

Thanks! ¡Gracias!

• Prior knowledge is a cognitive characteristic related to knowledge learners have about the tools or about the learning task (Aleven, et al., 2003; Elen & Clarebout, 2006)

•Prior knowledge•Levels of prior knowledge affect tool use and performance (Dillon and Jobst, 2005, Aleven et al 2003; Viau & Larivee, 1993). More prior knowledge more tool use (Martens et al, 1997), low prior knowledge more tool use (Renkl, 2002)