1 / 30

Insook Lee Sejong University AECT 2003 Annual Conference Anaheim, CA. USA 2003. 10.23

Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy and e-Learning Strategies during e-Learning and Academic Achievement. Insook Lee Sejong University AECT 2003 Annual Conference Anaheim, CA. USA 2003. 10.23. Introduction.

rocio
Download Presentation

Insook Lee Sejong University AECT 2003 Annual Conference Anaheim, CA. USA 2003. 10.23

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy and e-Learning Strategies during e-Learning and Academic Achievement Insook Lee Sejong University AECT 2003 Annual Conference Anaheim, CA. USA 2003. 10.23

  2. Introduction • the maturity of information society. the increase of the demands for distributed learning, lifelong learning, and learner-regulated learning • cyberspace: openness, flexibility, decentralization • the increase of needs for self regulation (Knowles, 1998) • Within the increased flexibility of the new technology, the learning results may vary depending on individual learners’ intellectual competencies and learning preferences(Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Owston, 1997; Windschitl, 1998).

  3. Introduction • self regulated learning’s impacts on learning processes and learning achievement: • various research evidences • Its impacts are prospected to be stronger in e-learning environment (Hartley & Bendixen, 2001). • But, most research on e-learning simply applies and presupposes the same learning strategies identified and discussed in the traditional face-to-face learning environment. • increased need for reconsideration of self regulated learning roles within e-learning context in a systemic and multidimensional way.

  4. Goals of Study • to examine self-regulated learning strategies(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons), self-efficacy (Pintrich & DeGroot), and e-learning strategies (Lee) within the e-learning environment • to search for implications for instructional interventions. 1. How are the self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies related to student academic achievement within the e-learning environment? 2. What are the relations among self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies?

  5. LiteratureReview • meaningful learning : the foremost goal of education • characteristics of meaningful learning: The concept of ‘self-regulated’ is emphasized. • self-regulation: broad and complex concept. Each researcher proposes his/her own concepts and categories according to his/her theoretical background and interests.

  6. LiteratureReview • Zimmerman(1990): explaining self-regulation with the systematic use of meta-cognitive, motivational and behavioral learning strategies • meta-cognitive: practicing of planning, goal setting, organization, self-monitoring, self-evaluation • motivational aspects (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) : self-efficacy, self-consequencing, internal task interest, efforts and endurance (Borkowski et. al., 1990; Henderson, 1986; Schunk, 1986; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) • Behavioral aspects: seeking assistance, seeking information, seeking for appropriate learning environment, self instruction, and self reinforcement, etc. (Diaz & Neal, 1992; Henderson, 1986; Rohrkemper, 1989; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986).

  7. LiteratureReview Time management • considered to be part of resource management (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986), part of self-management (Pintrich and DeGroot, 1999) • can deeply influence learning ability • Effective use of learning time is the product of learning strategies such as planning and goal setting (Zimmerman, Greenberg, & Weinstein, 1994).

  8. LiteratureReview Time management: Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips (1990) • Time management: multi-dimensional characteristics • Critical relations among time management, learning performance and stress Time management: Delucchi. Rohwer, & Thomas (1987) • Identifying the relations between learning time allocation styles and learning achievement

  9. LiteratureReview Time management: Britton &Tesser (1991) • Time management behavior predicted learning achievement more than IQ (SAT score) did. • College students, time management test, after 4 years, comparing with GPA.

  10. LiteratureReview Time management: Trueman & Hartley (1995) • British college students. applying Britton & Tesser’s research frame(1991). scales of time management and one semester’s GPA • findings in 3 categories different from Britton & Tesser’s • daily planning and long term planning: more outstandingly appeared in this research, comparing to Britton & Tessor’s. • confidence on long term planning: slightly but significantly correlated with various learning outcomes

  11. LiteratureReview Time management: e-learning • E-learning demands learners abilities to operate their own time, to process information, and to plan and manage materials (Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000). • Self-regulation is emphasized as the critical factors when considering e-learning environment design and instructional strategies. • Burge(1993), Eastmond(1993) • Lee (2000), Lee (2002), Lee (2003) • Jo & Lim (2002)

  12. LiteratureReview Burge (1993): e-learning strategies • Especially choice-making, expression, group interaction, and organization of information Eastmond (1993): e-learning strategies • effective use of the features of multiple discussion, information overload, and text ambiguity • development of strategies required for online information processing • decision of how to contribute to cyber community • transferred strategies from F2F: time management, learning styles, social skills, positive attitudes, goal setting, information seeking, self-confidence

  13. LiteratureReview Lee (2000) : web based e-learning context • college students’ e-learning strategies • expression, information processing, self-regulation, and seeking for human resources Lee (2001): web based e-learning context • adults learners over 20 years old. the relationship between 8 e-learning strategies and learning achievement • time management, self-efficacy, and positive attitude: positively predict learning achievement

  14. LiteratureReview Lee (2002) • gender differences on self-regulated learning in the e-learning context • interaction, information processing, sincerity, and persistence Jo & Lim (2002) • time management : negative predication on learning achievement with the Goal based Scenario e-Learning context

  15. LiteratureReview Melburg and Others(1993) • 800 adults, to develop assessment tools for the distance education context by applying Weinstein’s LASSI • 10 sub variables categories did not appear in the distance education context. Also elements of each sub variable category was not well concordance with LASSI. implications: • Adult learners in distance education environment may have learning needs slightly different from traditional campus based one. • can’t fully assess learning strategies variables in distance or e-learning environment with traditional self-regulated variables only

  16. LiteratureReview Implications of Literature Review: • Not everybody receives the same benefits from self-regulated environment. • Learners need to have self-regulation in learner-controlled environment such as e-learning environment. • high possibilities that self-regulation variables and categories identified in traditional F2F settingsmay have some limitations in understanding self-regulated learning strategies in e-learning environment • Nonetheless, current literature lacks interests on holistic and specific understanding of self-regulation in e-learning environment itself.

  17. Study Methods and Procedures Subjects • randomly selected 77 adult learners who were enrolled in one of the Korea's Digital Distance Universities • varied in terms of the majors, ages, and genders (22 freshmen &55 sophomores; 33 in social sciences, 22 inelectronics and engineering, & 22 inarts; 46 males & 31 females). Age spans: 21∼57 Instruments • Three kinds of questionnaires were employed and each item was designed with 5-point Likert scales. • self-regulated learning strategies by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (a 14 Item questionnaire) • self-efficacy by Pintrich and De Groot (a 9 item questionnaire) • e-learning strategies by Lee (a 39-item survey questionnaire)

  18. Study Methods and Procedures Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons’ 14 Self-regulated strategy: • 1) Self-evaluating 2) Organizing & transforming 3) Goal setting & planning 4) Seeking information 6) Environment structuring 7) Self-consequencing 8) Rehearsing & memorizing 9) Seeking assistance Peer/Teacher/Adult, and 10) Reviewing Test/Notes/Texts • Internal consistency in the current study: Cronbach's α=.90

  19. Study Methods and Procedures Pintrich &DeGroot’s (1990) self-efficacy • 9 self-efficacy items from Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Originally 7-point Likert scales but revised to 5 points. (Cronbach's α=.89) • Compared with other students in this class I expect to do well. • I’m certain I can understand the idea taught in this course. • I expect to do very well in this class. • Compared with others in this class, I think I’m a good student. • I am sure I can do an excellent job oh the problems and tasks assigned for this class. • I think I will receive a good grade in the class. • My study skills are excellent compared with others in this class • Compared with other students in this class I think I know a great deal about the subject. • I know that I will be able to learn the material for this class.

  20. Study Methods and Procedures Lee (2001) e-learning strategies • 8 sub categories, 39 items, 5 point Likert scale

  21. Study Methods and Procedures Learning Achievement Analysis • individual learner’s one semester GPA (4.3 point scale) • totally 58 courses offered. • midterm, final exam, assignments, and learning activities: varied combinations • more than half of the courses used midterm and final exams only for grading. • 20 courses used attendance rates for grading and in average 10% of the total grade points

  22. Research Findings 1. How are the self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies related to student academic achievement within the e-learning environment? • ‘time management’ (Beta =0.55, R=0. 478, p <. 001): the most significant predictor on academic achievement step-wise

  23. Research Findings • In addition, only Lee’s e-learning strategies significantly predicted academic achievement (F=3.37. p=0.03); however, not Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning strategies (F=2.44, P=.123) and Pintrich’s self-efficacy (F=3.51, p=0.065).

  24. Research Findings 2. What are the relations among self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies? • positive and moderately high relations among self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies e-Learning strategiesself-efficacy Self-regulated learning strategies **p < .01

  25. Research Findings • confirmed in the e-learning environment the close correlation between Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning strategies and Pintrich’s self-efficacy well identified in the traditional learning environment. • Moreover, identified the close correlation between e-learning strategies and self-regulated learning strategies/self-efficacy. • In the contrary, however, group discussion, information processing, and time management within Lee’s e-learning strategies were not associated with self-regulation and self-efficacy (p > 0.05) or slightly associated with. This result indicated that e-learning strategies may not be comprehensively dealt with by the traditional framework of self-regulation and self-efficacy.

  26. Self- regulated learning strategies Information processing Self- efficacy Multiplicity in interaction Group Discussion Information overload Asynchronicity management Time management Information interpretation Expression Multiple discussion Discussion management Information overload Information management Asynchronicity management Time management Information interpretation Self- efficacy Self- regulated learning strategies Research Findings variables Expression * P〈0.05, ** P〈0.01

  27. Discussion and Conclusion 1. What are the relations among self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies? • the higher Zimmerman & Martinez-pons’ self regulation, the higher Pintrich & DeGroot’s self-efficacy, the higher Lee’s e-learningstrategies • in the e-learning environment: • the higher Pintrich & DeGroot’s self efficacy, the higher time management - regular and efficient learning time use, successful use of asynchronous learning environment and potentiality • The better Zimmerman & Martinez-pons’ self-regulation, the better asynchronocity management, information processing, and expression.

  28. Discussion and Conclusion • Positive correlation between Zimmerman &Martinez-pons’ self-regulation and Pintrich & DeGroot’s self-efficacy appears in the e-learning environment too. • But, some strategy variables with no or little relations are identified. What it means? the need for academic efforts to understand and identify specific self-regulation strategies newly appearing or more outstanding in e-learning environment • information interpretation, group discussion, time management, and information overload: high possibility to be ignored in the research framework in F2F environment.

  29. Discussion and Conclusion 2. How are the self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and e-learning strategies related to academic achievement within the e-learning envirionments? • Various research on time management that can predict learning achievement (Britton & Tesser, 1991; Trueman & Hartley, 1995) or that is correlated with learning achievement (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990) is confirmed in the current e-learning context. • Confirms various research that time management is the most predicting variable for learning achievement in e-learningenvironment (Lee, 2002; Lee, 2003; Jo & Lim, 2002). • Implies that there would be limitations in supporting self-regulation in e-learning environment if we rely on solely the models and schemes based on F2F environment such as Zimmerman &Martinez-pons’ and Pintrich & DeGroot’s….

  30. Q & A Inlee@sejong.ac.kr http://www.sejong.ac.kr/~inlee

More Related