The role of scaffold interactivity in supporting self-regulated learning in a community college online composition course | Journal of Computing in Higher Education
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The role of scaffold interactivity in supporting self-regulated learning in a community college online composition course

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study addressed some of the challenges of supporting self-regulated learning in community college online English composition. This course used a flexible learning design, providing a choice of procedural scaffolds to support self-regulation of learning tasks by students. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the use of two procedural scaffolds, a custom-designed, interactive checklists tool and a non-interactive calendar tool, and the core assignment submission and metacognition of online English composition students. Measures included clickstream data for procedural scaffold usage, a count of core assignment submissions, and Metacognitive Awareness Inventory scores. Results indicated that use of the custom-designed interactive checklists tool better supported submission of core assignments by students than the non-interactive calendar tool. While metacognition awareness scores increased across the study, no significant association with procedural scaffold use was found. Implications for future practice support the continued and extended use of interactive procedural scaffolds to support online students through task completion for complex processes such as academic writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC, Oakland, CA. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf.

  • Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J., Moos, D., Greene, J., & Winters, F. (2011). Adaptive content and process scaffolding: A key to facilitating students’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(1), 106–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 725–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505–518). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendixen, L. D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 15–30. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergamin, P. B., Werlen, E., Siegenthaler, E., & Ziska, S. (2012). The relationship between flexible and self-regulated learning in open and distance universities. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2), 101–123. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C., & Sutherland, T. (1996). The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 3–16. (Retrieved from Wiley Online Library).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) National Research Council (US)/Committee on Learning Research and, Educational Practice, & National Research Council (US)/Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school expanded ed. United States of America: National Academy Press.

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. Y., Fan, J.-P., & Macredie, R. D. (2006). Navigation in hypermedia learning systems: Experts versus novices. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5), 513–540. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1278-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & van der Hulst, A. (2002). The effects of graphical overviews on exploratory behaviour and knowledge acquisition in hypertext environments. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 18, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (1st ed., pp. 1–31). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1989). A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 309–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469. doi:10.3102/0034654310370163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.3102/003465430303953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotzer, T. A. (2002). Expanding our vision for educational technology: Procedural, conceptual, and structural knowledge. Educational Technology, 42(2), 52–59. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, J., & Meadows, J. (2008). An absolutely riveting online course: Nine principles for excellence in web-based teaching. Canadian Journal of Learning And Technology/La Revue Canadienne De L’Apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 34(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/179/177.

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52. doi:10.1007/BF02504914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International, 38(4), 281–287. doi:10.1080/09523980110105114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(1), 1–8. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417. doi:10.1016/j.compuedu.2010.08.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 221–247. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practical useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition & Learning, 2(2), 141–155. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., & Greene, B. A. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2–14. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, R. J., Paper, D., Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2002). Hypertext navigation—An intrinsic component of the corporate intranet. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42, 49–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D., & Azevedo, R. (2006). The role of goal structure in undergraduates’ use of self-regulatory processes in two hypermedia learning tasks. Journal of Educational Media and Hypermedia, 15(1), 49–86. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. M. (1978). Teach the motivating force of revision. The English Journal, 67(7), 56–60. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/814742.

  • Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. L., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potelle, H., & Rouet, J.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58, 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proske, A., Narciss, S., & Korndle, H. (2007). Interactivity and learners’ achievement in web-based learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 511–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285–307. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2nKniiL1qBzLTE4UzVvaVVqeEk/edit.

  • Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75(0), 103–111. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009.

  • Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Understanding adult learners’ self-regulation in online environments: A qualitative study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 263–274. (Retrieved from Education Full Text).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 44(5), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Mu, J., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Fischer, F. (2011). The myth of over-scripting: Can novices be supported too much? In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL2011 conference proceedings (vol 1, pp. 406–413).

  • The College Board. (2014). Accuplacer program manual. New York: The College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5–22. doi:10.1007/BF02504714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation and performance (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x/pdf.

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29–36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628. doi:10.2307/1163093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Seminole State College of Florida, 100 Weldon Boulevard, Sanford, FL, 32773, USA

    Katherine Kellen

  2. School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, G-518B Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7048, USA

    Pavlo Antonenko

Authors
  1. Katherine Kellen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pavlo Antonenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Kellen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kellen, K., Antonenko, P. The role of scaffold interactivity in supporting self-regulated learning in a community college online composition course. J Comput High Educ 30, 187–210 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9160-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9160-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation