applying self-regulated learning strategies in a web-based instruction—an investigation of...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Diego]On: 16 November 2014, At: 18:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computer Assisted Language LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Applying Self-Regulated LearningStrategies in a Web-BasedInstruction—An Investigation ofMotivation PerceptionMei-Mei Changa National Pingtung University of Science and Technology , TaiwanPublished online: 16 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Mei-Mei Chang (2005) Applying Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction—An Investigation of Motivation Perception, Computer Assisted Language Learning,18:3, 217-230, DOI: 10.1080/09588220500178939
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220500178939
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Applying Self-Regulated Learning
Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction—
An Investigation of Motivation
Perception
Mei-Mei ChangNational Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of self-regulated learning strategies on learners’
perception of motivation within web-based instruction. In this study, self-regulated learning
strategies, which were intended to assist students to self-observe and self-evaluate their
effectiveness, were incorporated into a one-semester web-based course to help students improve
their learning motivation. Research results revealed that students’ motivation perception benefited
from the web-based instruction with self-regulated learning strategies. Students learning within a
web-based environment with self-regulated learning strategies became more responsible for their
own learning, more intrinsically orientated and more challengeable. They tended to value the
learning material more and became more confident in course understanding and class performance.
Introduction
Learners’ motivations have been found to be improved in a constructivist learning
environment using technology (Chung, 1991; Guthrie & Richardson, 1995;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). As a learner-centered approach, web-based learning
places a variety of demands on learners that exceed those typically experienced in
traditional teacher-centered classrooms. In a constructivist web-based learning
environment, learners are encouraged to construct knowledge for themselves (Winn,
1991) and to have the control of their own learning. Through meaningful experience,
they can search for patterns, raise their own questions, and construct their own
*Corresponding author. Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of
Science and Technology, No. 1, Shuehfu Road, Pingtung, Taiwan, 912. Email:
Computer Assisted Language LearningVol. 18, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 217 – 230
ISSN 0958-8221 (print)/ISSN 1744-3210 (online)/05/030217–14
ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/09588220500178939
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
models, concepts, and strategies. For students, web-based learning is a suitable
environment for them to take charge of their own learning since they can control their
own learning process. However, providing students with opportunities to integrate
their knowledge through web-based instruction may not be effective if they lack the
skills needed to regulate their learning. Thus, strategies that prepare students for the
rigors of learning at a distance and increase the probability of retention and success
must be put into practice.
Previous studies have established that self-regulated skills can foster learning from
any instructional method (see Ertmer, Newby, & MacDougall, 1996; Lindner &
Harris, 1993; Weinsten, 1989; Zimmerman, 1990). This study tested the application
of self-regulated learning strategies to web-based instruction.
Literature Review
Motivation and Language Learning
Motivation is essential for successful language learning. Motivation is the factor that
arouses, directs, and sustains increased performance (Duttweiler, 1986). According
to Krashen (1985), learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image,
and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language
acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety, on the
contrary, can combine to raise a learner’s affective filter and form a mental block to
impede language acquisition. Disagreeing with the concept of cognitive-centeredness,
both Horwitz (1988) and Brown (1987) also point out that along with other affective
factors, motivation plays a very important role in language learning. In addition,
Gardner and Lambert’s studies (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985) found a
relationship between degree of motivation and successful language learning. But not
all motivation functions the same. From a socio-psychological perspective, Gardner
and Lambert (1972) distinguished instrumental motivation, a pragmatic purpose to
learn the language, from integrative motivation, the desire to know the people of
target language; and found a link between integrative motivation and higher level of
language level achievement. Similarly, Graham (1984) found that learners’ desire to
assimilate into the culture of the target language is a key factor for the development of
learners’ communicative competence.
Nevertheless, results on the study of integrative motivation are not consistent (Au,
1988). Some findings have indicated that instrumental motivation is as much as or
even more related to language proficiency than integrative motivation (Chihara &
Oller, 1978; Oller, Hudson, & Liu, 1977). As a result, alternative approaches to the
study of foreign language learning motivation have been adopted (Brown, 1990;
Crook & Schmidt, 1991), and one that has received much attention and is
particularly relevant to learning in the language classroom is the model that
distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Brown, 1994; Dicinson,
1995; Williams & Burden, 1997). Intrinsic motivation is the drive inherent in an
activity itself, as when we engage in an activity for its own sake or merely because it is
218 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
fun. That is, a student who is intrinsically motivated undertakes an activity because of
the enjoyment it provides, the learning it permits, or the feelings of accomplishment it
evokes. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is the force that stems from the work
environment external to the task. Therefore, an extrinsically motivated student
performs because of rewards and/or punishments external to the activity itself. In
terms of the impacts of motivation on learning, it is believed that learners with
intrinsic motivation are more successful on the account that they are willing to accept
and meet challenges in order to achieve satisfaction and enjoyment inherent in the
activity or task itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Learners with extrinsic motivation, on the
other hand, try to keep away from difficult tasks to avoid punishment or gain rewards.
Chang and Lehman (2002) found that students who were more highly intrinsically
motivated performed better academically and were more motivated by an
instructional computer-based language-learning program.
Computer Assisted Instruction and Motivation
Applying technology to improve learners’ motivations has been noticed by
researchers (Chung, 1991; Guthrie & Richardson, 1995; Liou, 1997; Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 1991; Van Aacken, 1999). Klein (1990) examined the effect on
motivation of using an instructional game and supplemental reading with 75
undergraduate education majors. In the treatment group, subjects used an
instructional game developed by the researchers while the control group used a
worksheet containing the same review questions as the game. It was found that using
the instructional game had a significant effect on motivation. Gale (1991) used
courseware consisting of an event on the screen that required the students to respond
by making a decision and speaking in Spanish class. Research results showed that
students were motivated and liked working with the computer-based courseware very
much (Gale, 1991). Watts and Lloyd (2001) evaluated a classroom multimedia
program for teaching literacy. The outcomes demonstrated that children become self-
directive and very active and exploratory in a very short time. Song and Keller (2001)
examined the effectiveness of a motivationally-adaptive computer-assisted instruction
on 60 Grade 10 students’ motivation. Three treatment conditions included
motivationally adaptive CAI, motivationally saturated CAI, and motivationally
minimised CAI. Motivationally adaptive CAI was superior to the motivationally
saturated CAI and motivationally minimised CAI for the enhancement of overall
motivation and attention (Song & Keller, 2001). Chang and Lehman (2002)
examined the effect of relevance on learners’ motivation in a multimedia-based
language learning program. It was found that the group learning from the program
with relevance enhancement outperformed than the group without relevant
enhancement in terms of motivation perception. The group with the higher level of
intrinsic motivation that also learned from the relevance enhancement program had
the highest score on motivation perception.
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction 219
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Self-Regulation and Motivation
Self-regulation, which is defined as an individual’s ability and motivation to
implement, monitor, and evaluate various learning strategies for the purpose of
facilitating knowledge growth (Ertmer et al., 1996), is an important aspect of student
academic performance and achievement in the classroom (Hofer, Yu, & Pintrich,
1998). Schunk (1989) defined self-regulated learning in terms of self-regulated
thoughts, feelings, and actions, which are systematically oriented toward attainment
of students’ own goals. Winne (1995) described self-regulated learning as an
inherently constructive and self-directed process. In recent years, investigators have
indicated that poor self-regulatory skills contribute to low motivation and learning
(Newman, 1994; Schunk, 1994) and self-regulative strategy use is positively
correlated with motivation perception (Chang & Wu, 2003). Self-regulation includes
the process of monitoring, controlling and regulating one’s cognitive activities and
behaviors (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Self-regulated learning (SRL) has emerged as an
important construct in education, and it has become clear that one of the key issues in
self-regulated learning is the learners’ ability to select, combine, and coordinate
cognitive strategies in an effective way (Boekaerts, 1999).
Although there are a number of different models of self-regulated learning, they
share the same assumption that students can actively regulate cognition, motivation,
or behaviour and, through these various regulatory processes, achieve their goals and
perform better (Zimmerman, 1989). Researchers such as Lindner and Harris (1993)
and Zimmerman (1990) claimed that self-regulation skills promote learning from any
instructional method. However, it is acknowledged that the development of self-
regulation is not an automatic process for all learners; self-regulation does not
automatically develop as people become older, nor is it passively acquired from the
environment (Schunk, 1989). Efforts to apply instructional strategies for facilitating
the development and growth of self-regulation skills such as active learning in an
authentic context, collaborative effort, and reflective thinking are recommended
(Ertmer et al.1996; Shulman, 1992).
Self-regulated learning strategies which included recording study time, writing
reflective summaries, conducting collaborative group projects, and keeping learning
journals were used in this study, to enhance learners’ motivation perception. The
motivation perception being focused on in this study included learners’ intrinsic goal
orientation (the degree to which the student perceives herself to participate in a task
for reasons), perception of task value (students’ evaluation of the importance of the
task, the intrinsic interest in the task, and the usefulness of the task), control of
learning beliefs (students’ beliefs that their efforts to learn will result in positive
outcomes), and self-efficacy for learning and performance (a self-appraisal of one’s
ability to complete a task and one’s confidence in skills to perform that task). The self-
regulated learning strategies were used to help students develop a sense of personal
control that has been shown to be a major source of intrinsic motivation to continue
learning on their own (Zimmerman, 1995).
220 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Research Questions
This study was designed to explore students’ perception of motivation and responses
to web-based instruction through the aid of self-regulated learning strategies. The
questions guiding data collection were:
1. Do students learning from a web-based instruction and applying self-regulated
learning strategies improve their perception of intrinsic goal orientation after
finishing the course?
2. Do students learning from a web-based instruction and applying self-regulated
learning strategies improve their perception of task value?
3. Do students learning from a web-based instruction and applying self-regulated
learning strategies improve their control of learning beliefs?
4. Do students learning from a web-based instruction and applying self-regulated
learning strategies improve their self-efficacy for learning and performance?
Method
This study incorporated self-regulated learning strategies, which were designed to
assist students to self-observe and self-evaluate their effectiveness, to self-monitor
changes, and to adjust their strategic methods, into web-based instruction. According
to previous research (Hofer et al., 1998), a semester-long course at the college level
can be helpful in developing self-regulated learning in college students. Thus, the
course, targeted at first- and second-year college students from different majors, was
designed as a semester-long, 2-credit-hour class. The entire class, consisting of 28
students, met every three weeks to discuss problems and give presentations. The class
provided students with exposure to global issues through the web and self-record
forms for recording study time and study place. In addition, students participated in
discussions on various topics through the web, conducted two group projects, and
kept journals on their learning process during the semester.
Subjects
Participants in this study were 28 vocational university students. The gender
breakdown was two males and 26 females. Five of the students were non-English
major sophomores and the others were freshmen English majors. None of them had
previous experience taking a web-based course.
The Course
The web-based instruction in this study consisted of text-based information on a
variety of topics. All the articles were composed as Word documents and posted on
the course website. The website consisted of four sections: Course Information,
Course Content, Course Discussion, and Students System. Course information
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction 221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
provided course description, syllabus, assignments, and grading; Course Content
included issues on the 9/11 attack, election 2000, educational reform, economics,
greenhouse effects, famous people, and so forth. The reading assignments were
provided on the website week-by-week. For each topic, several articles were provided.
Students were free to choose any one of the articles to read and to summarise. For
each topic, students interacted with each other and gave their reflections on a
discussion board. In addition, two group projects related to the topics were
collaboratively conducted throughout the semester.
Journals, a study time recording form, and a reflective summary form were used
during the semester. The study time recording form was adapted from Zimmerman
and others (1996). These forms were given to students at the beginning of the
semester and students were asked to record their study time and place on the study
time recording form each time when they entered the course website to read the
articles or to respond to the discussion board. In addition, students were asked to
write a reflective summary for each article they read from the course website on
Course Discussion board, and keep a learning journal as well. In the learning
journal, students were free to write down the processes of learning they employed as
well as questions, reflections, suggestions, and even complaints concerning their
learning.
Instruments
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), developed by
Pintrich and others (1991), is a self-report, Likert-type (1= not true of me, to 7= very
true of me) instrument designed to measure university students’ motivational
orientations and their use of different learning strategies. The motivation section of
the MSLQ consists of six sub-scales with items designed to assess students’ goals
and value beliefs for a course, their beliefs about their skill to succeed in a course,
and their anxiety about tests in a course. The learning strategy section consists of
nine sub-scales with items regarding students’ use of different cognitive and
metacognitive strategies as well as management of various resources. In this study,
sub-scales with items designed to assess students’ intrinsic goal orientation,
students’ perception of the task value, students’ control of learning beliefs, and
students’ self-efficacy beliefs about learning and performance were used. Cronbach
coefficient alpha reliabilities were .74 for intrinsic goal orientation, .90 for the task
value sub-scale, .68 for the control of learning beliefs, and .93 for the self-efficacy
sub-scale.
Procedures
At the beginning of the semester, the MSLQ was administered. In total, there were
35 MSLQ items. On a demographic form, participants also provided general
demographic information as well as responses to questions about how many other
college level courses they had taken in this subject area and how many hours a week
222 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
they studied for this course. They were also asked to select their reason for taking
this course from 11 given items. Meanwhile, each student was assigned a password
to get into the course website at the beginning of the semester and visited the
course website to read the assignments and the articles provided on related
websites. In addition, students were supposed to discuss the issues regarding
different topics on the Course Discussion section. At mid-semester, students
worked in groups to give a field trip report related to educational reform, and, at
the end of the semester, they created a final report regarding famous people. When
meeting in class, the instructor checked the study time recording form and students
were asked to review their own study records and make a comparison table to
monitor their self-learning process. For study time, students were to make a line
chart to see the change of their study time. From the line chart, students could
easily find out if their study time increased or decreased. From a study journal, they
were to highlight the strategy they used when studying the course content for each
unit. In class, students were to integrate data from forms and learning journal into
one table—study time, reflective summary score, and the strategy used for reading.
From the table, students could easily see the time they spent on reading each
article, the score they got for each reflective summary and the strategy they used for
each unit. By comparing results, they were able to make necessary adjustments and
changes. In the meantime, students were asked to list strategies they may need to
adjust for future learning. At the end of the semester, the MSLQ was administered
again.
Data Analysis
T-tests were conducted to answer the research questions about students’ goal
orientation, perception of task value, students’ control of learning beliefs, and
students’ self-efficacy for learning and performance.
The MSLQ sub-scale scores for each participant were constructed by taking the
mean of the items that make up that scale. For example, task value has six items;
summing the six items and taking the average computed an individual’s score for task
value. For negatively worded items, the ratings were reversed. In general, a higher
Table 1. T-test of five sub-scale scores for pre-test and post-test for all subjects (N=28)
Mean(Std)
Scales Pre-test Post-test df t
Intrinsic goal orientation 3.66(.58) 5.39(.77) 27 10.43**
Task value 4.13(.61) 5.07(.87) 26 4.36**
Control of learning beliefs 4.27(.55) 5.33(.92) 27 5.54**
Self-efficacy 3.97(.57) 4.61(.66) 27 3.70**
Note. ** p5 .01
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction 223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
score of 4, 5, 6, or 7 indicates a positive response to the items. The internal
consistency reliability was .68 for the intrinsic goal orientation sub-scale, .89 for the
task value sub-scale, .74 for the control of learning beliefs sub-scale, and .77 for the
self-efficacy sub-scale in this study. The overall distribution of the four sub-scale
mean scores for pretest and posttest is provided in Table 1.
Results
Intrinsic Goal Orientation
Goal orientation refers to learners’ general goals or orientation to the course as a
whole. Intrinsic goal orientation concerns the degree to which the student perceives
herself to be participating in a task for reasons such as challenge, curiosity, and
mastery. Learners with an intrinsic goal orientation toward an academic task indicate
that the participation in the task is an end unto itself, rather than participation being a
means to an end. Results indicate that after the one semester course, students’
intrinsic goal orientation improved. The difference between pre-test and post-test is
statistically significant (p5 .01) (See Table 2).
Students Perception of Task Value
Task value refers to students’ evaluation of the importance of the task, the intrinsic
interest in the task, and the usefulness of the task (Pintrich, 1989).
In this study, task value refers to students’ perception of the course material in
terms of interest, importance, and utility. There were 6 items in this scale. Table 3
shows that students positively viewed the importance of the course materials (Item 1
and 2; p5 .05), especially after finishing the course. Students also believed that the
materials were useful, and they could use what they have learned in this class in other
Table 2. T-test of intrinsic goal orientation items between pre-test and post-test (df=27)
Mean(Std)
Item Pre-test Post-test t
1. In a class like this, I prefer course material that really
challenges me so I can learn new things
4.04(.79) 5.32(1.02) 5.47**
2. In a class like this, I prefer course materials that
arouse my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn
3.79(1.26) 5.54(1.26) 5.47**
3. The most satisfying thing for me in this course is
trying to understand the content as thoroughly as
possible
3.71(1.05) 5.75(.89) 8.97**
4. When I have the opportunity in this class, I choose
course assignments that I can learn from even if they
don’t guarantee a good grade
3.11(.74) 4.96(1.13) 9.41**
Note. p5 .05, ** p5 .01
224 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
classes (Item 3 and 4; p5 .01). After finishing the course, students were more
interested in the course content (Item 6; p5 .05).
Control of Learning Beliefs
Control of learning refers to students’ beliefs that their efforts to learn will result in
positive outcomes. It concerns the belief that outcomes are contingent on one’s own
effort, in contrast to external factors such as the teacher. There were 4 items in this
sub-scale. Results from the scale show that students believed that learning outcomes
were dependent on their own effort (See Table 4). After finishing the course, more
students believed that they could learn the course material only if they studied
appropriately and tried hard enough (Item 1 and 2; p5 .05), and that it is their
responsibility if they failed to understand the course materials (Item 3 and 4; p5 .01).
Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance
The 7 items of this scale assessed two aspects of expectancy: expectancy for success
and self-efficacy. Expectancy for success refers to performance expectations,
especially to task performance. Self-efficacy refers to a self-appraisal of one’s ability
to complete a task and one’s confidence in one’s skills to perform that task. Results
show that after finishing the course, students were more confident that they could
master the skills being taught in this class (Mean=4.82; p5 .01), and they did expect
to do well in this class (Mean=5.86; p5 .01). However, students were not sure that
they would receive an excellent grade in the class (Mean=3.75). In terms of
understanding courses materials, students were more confident of understanding
Table 3. T-test of task value items between pre-test and post-test (N=28)
Mean(Std)
Item Pre-test Post-test t
1. It is important for me to learn the course material in
this class
3.93(.90) 5.36(1.09) 4.6**
2. Understanding the subject matter of this course is
very important to me
4.57(1.23) 5.29(1.01) 2.07*
3. I think I will be able to use what I learned in this
course in other courses
4.07(.86) 5.25(1.04) 4.18**
4. I think the course material in this class is useful for
me to learn
3.39(1.10) 5.14(1.17) 6.05**
5. I like the subject matter of this course 4.85(.85) 5.00(1.15) .47
6. I am very interested in the content area of this
course
3.93(.92) 4.67(1.14) 2.69*
Note. p5 .05, ** p5 .01
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction 225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
basic concepts (M=5.21) than the difficult materials presented in this course
(M=4.00) (See Table 5).
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to examine the integration of self-regulatory
strategies, including journal keeping, study time self-recording, and reflective
summarisation in a web-based course. These activities were intended to assist
students to self-observe and self-evaluate their effectiveness, set goals and use
Table 4. T-test of control of learning beliefs items between pre-test and post-test (N=28)
Mean(Std)
Item Pre-test Post-test t
1. If I study in appropriate ways, then I will be able to
learn the material in this course
4.50(1.0) 5.82(.98) 5.35**
2. If I try hard enough, then I will understand the
course materials
4.57(.84) 5.54(.96) 2.08*
3. It is my own fault if I don’t learn the material in this
course
4.68(.77) 5.29(1.30) 4.36**
4. If I don’t understand the course material, it is
because I didn’t try hard enough
3.32(.72) 4.68(1.59) 4.01**
Note. p5 .05, ** p5 .01
Table 5. T-test of self-efficacy for learning and performance items between pre-test and post-test
Mean(Std)
Item Pre-test Post-test t
1. I expect to do well in this class 4.86(.71) 5.86(1.01) 5.02**
2. I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts
taught in this course
4.07(1.05) 5.21(1.10) 4.01**
3. I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in
this class
3.29(1.05) 4.82(.77) 5.59**
4. Considering the difficulty of this course and my
skills, I think I will do well in this class
4.14(.65) 4.57(.92) 1.84
5. I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the
assignments and tests in this course
3.86(.85) 4.36(1.13) 2.01
6. I’m certain I can understand the most difficult
material presented in the readings for this course
4.04(.74) 4.00(1.28) -.126
7. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class 3.54(.96) 3.75(1.08) .732
Note. * p5 .05, ** p5 .01
226 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
learning strategies, self-monitor changes, and adjust their strategic methods during
web-based instruction. The functions of the integration of self-regulatory activities
and the findings in terms of the research questions are discussed in the following.
From informal interviews with students, we found that when learning a new task,
students had only a vague sense of the effectiveness of their approach. Most of the
time students were unaware of how much study time they wasted until they kept a
detailed log. The study time self-recording strategy used in this study helped students
keep performance records and then improve the accuracy of their self-evaluations.
The reflective summarisation strategy helped students understand the content of the
article and get a clearer picture of the topic. Journals were also used to help students
organise and control their learning process and reflect on thoughts that emerged
when learning. In short, all the self-regulatory activities were designed to enhance
learners’ learning and their perception of self-efficacy or control over the learning
process.
In this study, students were asked to record their learning using different forms. In
class meetings, students were asked to review their own study records and make a
comparison table to monitor their self-learning processes. Then students were asked
to list strategies and the study time they may need to adjust for future learning. This
ongoing process helped students monitor their own learning process and adjust their
learning strategy when needed.
Findings of the study show that after finishing the one semester course, students’
intrinsic goal orientation was improved. Students tended to prefer material that was
challenging instead of easy; they would choose assignments that they could learn
more from. In terms of students’ perception of task value, students positively viewed
the importance of the course materials; they believed that the materials were useful,
and they could use what they learned from this class in other classes. Although some
of the students felt that the materials were not interesting, most of them agreed that
the materials were useful and important, and they liked the course. In addition,
students believed that learning outcomes were dependent on their own effort; the way
they could learn the course material was to study appropriately and try hard. The
findings also indicate that students perceived the outcome of their learning to be their
responsibility. This is good for learning because research has indicated that if students
believe that their efforts to study make a difference in their learning, they are more
likely to study more strategically and effectively (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia &
McKeachie, 1991).
It is encouraging to see that students became more confident that they could
understand the basic concepts taught in this class, and they did expect to do well in
the class although they were not sure that they would receive an excellent grade in the
class. On the other hand, students were more confident of understanding basic
concepts than the difficult materials presented in this course. Previous research
findings have shown that students’ motivation and their self-regulatory processes are
linked to their successful learning in the content domain (Chang, 2001; Etmer et al.,
1996). Results of this study indicate that incorporating self-regulatory strategies into
web-based instruction does help students improve their motivation beliefs.
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction 227
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
The limitations of this study that could have affected the results are the maturation
of the subjects themselves and the course content itself. Causal conclusions cannot be
drawn from this study because of the absence of the control group. Another question
is whether the results can be generalised to other populations of learners since this
study was done with a small class, and with mostly females. However, self-regulatory
theory and previous studies have suggested that self-regulatory strategies and CAI
have positive effects on motivation perception, and the results of this study support
previous studies indicating that web-based instruction in company with the self-
regulatory strategies improve students’ motivation perception.
Conclusion
Findings of this study reveal that the application of self-regulatory strategies within
web-based instruction can improve learners’ motivation perception, which includes
students’ goal orientation, students’ perception of task value, students’ beliefs of
learning control, and students’ expectancy for success and self-efficacy. Students in
this study became more confident, more challengeable and more greatly valued what
they learned after experiencing the web-based instruction with self-regulatory
strategies. In addition, students learning within this environment were more likely
to feel responsible for their own learning. They believed that their efforts to study
made a difference in their learning. The results provide a reference for both
instructional designers and instructors who utilise web-based instruction. Instruc-
tional designer are encouraged to embed features in instructional materials that
encouraged learners self-regulation. Such features can include prompts to record
study time, reflection activities, and opportunities for journaling. Findings of the
study also imply that teachers can shift responsibility for the learning process through
helping students develop self-regulatory skills. Learners who develop their self-
regulation skills are able to take more responsibility for their own learning and learn
with less intervention for the teacher. As a result, teachers may be able to spend less
time delivering content and more time guiding learners and modeling ways to learn.
Further studies with a bigger sample size and other student populations are
suggested. Repeating the study with a control group is recommended as well.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the reviewers, the Editor of CALL, and Dr James
Lehman for their insightful remarks in revising and publishing the paper.
References
Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social – psychological theory of second language
(L2) learning. Language Learning, 38, 75 – 100.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31, 445 – 457.
228 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Brown, H. D. (1990). M & Ms for language classrooms? Another look at motivation. In J. E. Alatis
(Ed.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University.
Brown, H. D. (1994) Teaching by principles: Interactive language teaching methodology. New York:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Chang, M. M. (2001). Effects of embedded relevance enhancement within a computer-based interactive
multimedia program for English as a foreign language learners. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette.
Chang, M. M., & Lehman, J. D. (2002). Learning foreign language through an interactive
multimedia program: An experimental study on the effects of the relevance component of the
ARCS model. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 81 – 98.
Chang, M. M., & Wu, Y. M. (2003). EFL learners’ self-efficacy and strategies use in a web-based
learning environment. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on English Teaching and
Learning in the Republic of China, Taiwan, ROC,117 – 125. Taiwan, Province University.
Chihara, T., & Oller, J. (1978). Attitudes and attained proficiency in EFL: A sociolinguistic study of
study of adult Japanese speakers. Language Learning, 28, 55 – 68.
Chung, J. (1991). Collaborative learning strategies: The design of instructional environments for
the emerging new school. Educational Technology, 31(12), 15 – 22.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning, 41, 469 – 512.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self – determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Dicinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System, 23, 165 – 174.
Duttweiler, P. C. (1986). Educational excellence and motivating teachers. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 275 791).
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ approaches to learning from
case – based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research
Journal, 33(3), 719 – 752.
Gale, L. E. (1991). Macario, Montevidisco, and interactive digame; Developing interactive video
for language instruction. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern technology in foreign language education:
Applications and projects (pp. 235 – 249). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: the role
of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.),
Self regulation of learning and performance: issues and educational applications. (pp. 127 – 153).
Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Graham, C. R. (1984). Beyond integrative motivation: The development and influence of
assimilative motivation. In P. Larson, E. L. Judd, & D. S. Messersmitt (Eds.), On TESOL’84:
A brave new world for TESOL. Washington, DC: Teachers of English as a Second Language.
Guthrie L. F., & Richardson, S. (1995). Turned on to language arts: Computer literacy in primary
grades. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 14 – 17.
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self – regulated
learners. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulation of learning and
performance: issues and educational applications. (pp. 57 – 85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language
students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283 – 94.
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Web-Based Instruction 229
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Klein, J. D. (1990). Providing using instructional games: A providing alternative. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 323 936).
Krashen , S. D.(1985) The input hypothesis :Issue and implications. New York: Longman.
Lindner, R. W., & Harris, B. (1993). Teaching self – regulated learning strategies: Proceedings of
selected research and development presentations at the Convention of the association for Educational
Communications and Technology, (pp. 641–654) New Orleans, LA, Ames, IA: AECT.
Liou, H. C. (1997). The impact of WWW texts on EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 10(5), 455 – 478.
Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self – regulated learning. In D. H.
Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
educational applications (pp. 283 – 301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oller, J. W., Hudson, A., & Liu, P. F. (1977). Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: A
sociolinguistic study of native speakers of Chinese in the United States. Language Learning, 27,
1 – 27.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Michigan: University of Michigan,
National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge-building:
A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of Learning Science, 1(1), 37 –
68.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman &
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theory, research, and
practice (pp. 83 – 110). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self – regulation of self – efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D.
H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self – regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
educational applications (pp. 75 – 99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L. (1992). Ways of seeing, ways of knowing, ways of teaching, ways of learning about
teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1, 393 – 396.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer – assisted
instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. ETR&D, 49(2), 5 – 22.
Van Aacken, S. (1999). What motivates L2 learners in acquisition of Kanji using CALL: A case
study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(2), 113 – 136.
Watts, M., & Lloyd, C. (2001). Evaluating a classroom multimedia programme in the teaching of
literacy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(1), 35 – 52.
Weinstein, C. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconceptions of teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 39, 53 – 60.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. CUP: Cambridge.
Winn, W. D. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational
Technology, September, 38 – 40.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self – regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173 –
187.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self – regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329 – 339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3 – 17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-
efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202 – 231). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self – regulated learners. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
230 M. M. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an D
iego
] at
18:
29 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014