Author:
Cristea Tudor,Snijders Chris,Matzat Uwe,Kleingeld Ad
Abstract
AbstractSelf-regulated learning has seen a large increase in research interest due to its importance for online learning of higher education students. Several ways to measure self-regulated learning have been suggested. However, most measurements are either obtrusive, necessitating time and effort from students and potentially influencing the learning process, or only partially portable across courses. In the current study, we develop clickstream-based scales of four self-regulated learning phases that we show are portable across courses. The final scales are based on the COPES model and include two strong and reliable dimensions, enactment and adaptation, one dimension that performs reasonably, task definition, and a weaker one, goal-setting. By considering portability as the main criterion in the scale construction process, we ensured reliable transfer to both similar and dissimilar courses. When considering convergent validity, the created scale has higher bivariate and partial correlations with final student grades than the often-used self-reported MSLQ-SRL scale. We discuss limitations and future research to improve the scale further and facilitate adoption.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Education
Reference41 articles.
1. Azcona, D., Hsiao, I.-H., & Smeaton, A. F. (2019). Detecting students-at-risk in computer programming classes with learning analytics from students’ digital footprints. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 29(4), 759–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09234-7
2. Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an Unknown Future. Proceedings Ascilite Sydney 2010, 75–86. http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Beer-full.pdf
3. Cloude, E. B., Azevedo, R., Winne, P. H., Biswas, G., & Jang, E. E. (2022). System design for using multimodal trace data in modeling self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Education, 7, 928632. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.928632
4. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
5. Conijn, R., Snijders, C., Kleingeld, A., & Matzat, U. (2017). Predicting student performance from LMS Data: A comparison of 17 blended courses using moodle LMS. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2616312