Supporting Self-Regulated Learning With Digital Media Using Motivational Regulation and Metacognitive Prompts

Abstract

Studying with digital media, learners often struggle because of inadequate self-regulation. Previous research presented clear evidence of metacognitive prompts being effective in supporting learning with digital media. This study examines the potential of motivational regulation prompts, which are assumed to additionally support self-regulated learning. During a 50-min learning session in a digital media learning environment, 215 university students received either no prompts, only metacognitive prompts, only motivational regulation prompts, or both types of prompts. Task value, metacognitive control, task-related learning activities, and knowledge were assessed at a pretest, posttest, and follow-up. The results replicated known positive effects of metacognitive prompts and revealed additional supportive effects of motivational regulation prompts on all dependent variables. Path modeling of the experimentally induced changes was in line with a theoretical model specifying proximal and distal effects of both prompts. Altogether, this indicates that especially motivational regulation prompts could be an effective scaffold to support SRL with digital media.

Do self-created metacognitive prompts promote short- and long-term effects in computer-based learning environments?

“…In an ideal setting, students would be able to engage in self-regulated learning in flexible CBLEs during their journey to achieve learning goals throughout their lifetime. However, many students experience difficulties in adequately self-regulating their learning, particularly in complex CBLEs and across multiple settings (e.g., Azevedo, Moos, Johnson, & Chauncey, 2010;Azevedo, Taub, & Mudrick, 2018;Daumiller & Dresel, 2018;Jansen, van Leeuwen, Janssen, Conijn, & Kester, 2020;Pieger & Bannert, 2018). Furthermore, these difficulties are associated with suboptimal learning outcomes (e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004;Bannert, Sonnenberg, Mengelkamp, & Pieger, 2015;Kizilcec, Pérez-Sanagustín, & Maldonado, 2017;Lai & Hwang, 2016).…”

“…Thus, the overall helpful effects of metacognitive prompts appear to be undisputed. Nevertheless, the extent of the usefulness of the metacognitive prompts within studies on metacognitive prompting seems to vary (Daumiller & Dresel, 2018;Zheng, 2016). A possible explanation may be that the effects of the metacognitive prompts on learning depend on how the students utilize the offered prompts.…”

“…To date, the utilization of prompts has scarcely been investigated in the common prompting research. To the best of our knowledge, only Daumiller and Dresel (2018) thematized prompt use, whereby the authors conceptualized it in terms of the subjectively assessed frequency of generally following the "incitement" of prompts. Accordingly, the focus of the mentioned study was instead on the handling of prompts in terms of "whether" rather than "how."…”

“…to more descriptive attributes (e.g., Bannert et al, 2015;Daumiller & Dresel, 2018;Lallé, Taub, Mudrick, Conati, & Azevedo, 2017;Wong, Khalil, Baars, de Koning, & Paas, 2019). Bannert et al (2015), for example, investigated the navigation behavior of students in regulating their learning to gain insight into whether and how students select pages with relevant content from learning websites.…”

“…The classical approach is characterized by presenting another delayed knowledge test on the same learning topic (s. Table 1). For example, Daumiller and Dresel (2018) supported the students of three experimental groups with prompts (only metacognitive prompts vs. only motivational prompts vs. metacognitive and motivational prompts) whereas students in the control group learned without prompts about a topic on psychological research methods. Immediately after learning, there was a knowledge test, and the results showed better learning outcomes for all groups of prompted students compared to the nonprompted students.…”