nach oben

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Erschienen in:

16.11.2021 | Original research

The Promises and Pitfalls of Self-regulated Learning Interventions in MOOCs

verfasst von: Kseniia Vilkova

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 3/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a fundamental skill to succeed in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), but many learners do not know how to self-regulate their learning. The need to support SRL in MOOCs led to the idea of social-psychological interventions that promise to improve course performance and decrease dropout rates. However, past research provides mixed evidence of the effectiveness of SRL interventions in MOOCs. In this randomized control trial (RCT), the heterogeneous effects of SRL intervention in three MOOCs were examined. The SRL intervention was embedded in a precourse survey, where learners were randomly assigned to experimental (N = 383) and control (N = 444) conditions. Both groups answered contextual questions, and then the experimental group was guided through a writing activity to boost SRL skills. The study aimed to assess how learner demographics may affect the results of the RCT. The results yielded no significant differences overall between the experimental and control conditions. However, the results of the binary logistic regression demonstrated that the heterogeneous effect is prevalent in SRL interventions in regard to learner demographics: males and older learners received advantages from the intervention. The current study adds to the field of SRL intervention in MOOCs and presents directions for future experiments. Based on the results of the paper, a number of methodological issues of SRL interventions in MOOCs were formulated, including self-selection bias and interventions that were not a part of the learning process, that focused on academic outcomes, and that had no follow-up analysis.

Vorheriger Artikel MOOCs in STEM Education: Teacher Preparation and Views

Nächster Artikel Not Only the Intention to Complete: The Role of Action-Oriented Intentions in MOOC Completion

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The unequal number of learners in the experimental and control conditions is associated with the peculiarities of the organization of the online survey.

No significant difference: χ2 (1, N = 827) = 1.14, p = 0.29.

No significant difference: t (827) = -1.07, p = 0.15.

No significant difference: χ2 (1, N = 827) = 1.67, p = 0.20.

Allison, P. (2012). When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? Statistical Horizons. Retrieved from https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity

Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 61–80.CrossRef

Cazan, A. M. (2020). An intervention study for the development of self-regulated learning skills. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01136-xCrossRef

Cerón, J., Baldiris, S., Quintero, J., Rubira, R., Velez, G., Graf, S., & De La Fuente, L. (2020). Self-regulated learning in massive online open courses: A state-of-the-art review. IEEE Access, 8, 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3045913CrossRef

Clark, D., Gill, D., Prowse, V., & Rush, M. (2020). Using goals to motivate college students: Theory and evidence from field experiments. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(4), 648–663. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23638CrossRef

Damgaard, M. T., & Nielsen, H. S. (2018). Nudging in education. Economics of Education Review, 64, 313–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.008CrossRef

Davis, D., Chen, G., Van der Zee, T., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2016). Retrieval practice and study planning in MOOCs: Exploring classroom-based self-regulated learning strategies at scale. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 57–71). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_5

Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430303953CrossRef

Grove, W. A., & Wasserman, T. (2006). Incentives and student learning: A natural experiment with economics problem sets. American Economic Review, 96(2), 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806777212224CrossRef

Healy, P. A. (2017). Georgetown’s first six MOOCs: Completion, intention, and gender achievement gaps. Undergraduate Economic Review, 14(1), 1–37.

Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Conijn, R., & Kester, L. (2020). Supporting learners’ self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 146, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103771CrossRef

Jensen, R. (2010). The (perceived) returns to education and the demand for schooling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 515–548. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.515CrossRef

Kizilcec, R. F., & Brooks, C. (2017). Diverse big data and randomized field experiments in MOOCs. Handbook of learning analytics, pp. 211–222. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.018

Kizilcec, R. F., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Eight-minute self-regulation intervention raises educational attainment at scale in individualist but not collectivist cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(17), 4348–4353. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611898114CrossRef

Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2016). Recommending self-regulated learning strategies does not improve performance in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on learning@ scale (pp. 101–104). https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2893378

Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 170–179). https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460330

Kizilcec, R. F., Reich, J., Yeomans, M., Dann, C., Brunskill, E., Lopez, G., & Tingley, D. (2020). Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14900–14905. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117CrossRef

Kizilcec, R. F., Saltarelli, A. J., Reich, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science, 355(6322), 251–252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2063CrossRef

Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Designing MOOCs for professional learners: Tools and patterns to encourage self-regulated learning. eLearning Papers, 42, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.1428569CrossRef

Maldonado-Mahauad, J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Kizilcec, R. F., Morales, N., & Munoz-Gama, J. (2018). Mining theory-based patterns from big data: Identifying self-regulated learning strategies in massive open online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.011CrossRef

Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983433

Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159.

Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B. J., & Hotchkiss, S. (2015). Can demographic information predict MOOC learner outcomes?. In Experience track: proceedings of the European MOOC stakeholder (pp. 199–217).

Panadero, E., Klug, J., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: When measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(6), 723–735.CrossRef

Pérez-Álvarez, R., Maldonado-Mahauad, J. J., Sapunar-Opazo, D., & Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (2017). NoteMyProgress: A tool to support learners’ self-regulated learning strategies in MOOC environments. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 460–466). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_43

Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Sapunar-Opazo, D., Pérez-Álvarez, R., Hilliger, I., Bey, A., Maldonado-Mahauad, J., & Baier, J. (2020). A MOOC-based flipped experience: Scaffolding SRL strategies improves learners’ time management and engagement. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22337CrossRef

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.CrossRef

Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2005). Non-response in student surveys: The role of demographics, engagement and personality. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1597-2CrossRef

Reich, J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958CrossRef

Reich, J. (2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/12/mooc-completion-and-retention-in-the-context-of-student-intent

Schippers, M. C., Scheepers, A. W., & Peterson, J. B. (2015). A scalable goal-setting intervention closes both the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap. Palgrave Communications, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.14CrossRef

Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2021). Investigating prompts for supporting students’ self-regulation: A remaining challenge for learning analytics approaches? The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100791CrossRef

Semenova, T. (2021). Not only the intention to complete: the role of action-oriented intentions in MOOC completion. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09534-1CrossRef

Semenova, T. V., & Rudakova, L. M. (2016). Barriers to taking massive open online courses (MOOCs). Russian Education & Society, 58(3), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2016.1242992CrossRef

Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1973). Effects of time and memory factors on response in surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(344), 805–815.CrossRef

van Lent, M., & Souverijn, M. (2017). Goal setting and raising the bar: A field experiment. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, 17–001, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101570CrossRef

Vilkova, K. (2019). Self-regulated learning and successful MOOC completion. In EMOOCs-WIP (pp. 72–78).

Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779CrossRef

Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Yu, J. H., Alamri, H., & Mueller, C. (2017). Learner profiles of attitudinal learning in a MOOC: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Computers & Education, 114, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.005CrossRef

Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, 2, 153–189.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 297–314). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wong, J., Baars, M., de Koning, B. B., & Paas, F. (2021). Examining the use of prompts to facilitate self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106596CrossRef

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311405999CrossRef

Yeomans, M., & Reich, J. (2017). Planning prompts increase and forecast course completion in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 464–473). https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027416

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. Springer Science & Business Media.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2CrossRef

Titel: The Promises and Pitfalls of Self-regulated Learning Interventions in MOOCs
verfasst von: Kseniia Vilkova
Publikationsdatum: 16.11.2021
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 3/2022
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09580-9

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2022

Investigation of The Web-based Self-Assessment System Based on Assessment Analytics in Terms of Perceived Self-intervention

Details Matter: How Contrasting Design Features in Two MUVEs Impact Learning Outcomes

Blended Learning Acceptance: A Systematic Review of Information Systems Models

Information Communication Technology in schools: Students Exercise ‘Digital Agency’ to Engage with Learning

Methodological Elements for the Implementation of Data Acquisition Systems as Support for Experimental Activity in the Physics Teaching

Do Teachers Find Dashboards Trustworthy, Actionable and Useful? A Vignette Study Using a Logs and Audio Dashboard

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten