Towards Strategic Learning Skills Through Self-Assessment and Tutoring in Web-Based Environment

Virtanen, Päivi; Niemi, Hannele; Nevgi, Anne; Raehalme, Outi and Launonen, AnnaDepartment of Education

University of Helsinki

Paper presented in ECER 2003 Conference in Hamburg 19 September 2003 in session 8A in Network 16 (ICT in Education and Training)

More information:paivi.s.virtanen@helsinki.fihannele.niemi@helsinki.fi

anne.nevgi@helsinki.fiouti.raehalme@helsinki.fi

anna.launonen@mail.suomi.net

http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/iqform/

AbstractHigh quality learning requires learning skills students can use in strategic ways. Learners

also need motivational and self-regulatory strategies to ensure to achieve objectives of studies. Quality learning also requires social participatory skills. In knowledge creation sharing and co-op-eration plays an important role. This article introduces tools for promoting higher education learners' self-regulation, learning skills and strategies, and supporting collaborative processes in virtual learning environments. The research and technical development has been done in the Uni-versity of Helsinki in 2000-2003 in the interdisciplinary research group. The tool set has two parts: (1) a tool for assessing a learner's individual qualities and learning skills (The IQ Learn) and (2) a tool for assessing collaboration and group processes in e-learning (The IQ Team). Both tools con-sist of interactive questionnaires for self-assessment and online connection to supportive tutoring sites. The pilot use of the IQ Learn revealed that students benefit from the virtual tutoring, espe-cially those who are at an early stage of their studies, or have difficulties in learning. We suggest the tool to be used under the tutelage of the teacher-tutor to attain the best outcomes on students’ development towards self-regulative and reflective learning.

Contents

1 Introduction2 Towards self-regulation3 Towards collaborative learning4 The IQ FORM tools on the WWW5 Modes of inquiry

5.1 Collecting data from different universities' student groups to identify their differences as self-regulated learners5.2 Validating self-regulative dimensions for interactive self-evaluation tests on the WWW5.3 Collecting data from different universities' student groups to identify their differences as collaborative learners5.4 Validating dimensions of collaborative learning for interactive self-evaluation tests on the WWW

6 Evaluation of the pilot use of the IQ Learn on the WWW7 Summary and conclusion

2

1 IntroductionThe article focuses on students’ self-regulatory and group work skills in Web-based learning

environments. The aim is to introduce a research project through which new interactive tutoring tools (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/iqform/) has been developed to support self-regulated and collab-orative learning in Web-based higher education settings. The article also presents how learners use the tool and learn self-regulation skills, and what results have been found in the pilot use of a new tutoring tool.

Kendall Hartley and Lisa D. Bendixen (2001) argue that learner characteristics have re-ceived too little attention in the educational technology research literature. There are some excep-tions (e.g. Hannafin & Land, 1997; Land & Green, 2000; Jacobson & Spiro 1995; Anderson 2000), but the importance of self-regulatory skills and epistemological beliefs in computer-based open-ended learning environments would require much more research. Learners’ repertoire of strategies to monitor their learning processes, and their willingness to invoke such strategies, will dramatically affect their ability to manage the wealth of information found on the Internet. Highly self-regulated students are better equipped to take advantage of this new environment. In addition to self-regulat-ory skills and epistemological beliefs, other characteristics that need careful consideration include motivation, self-efficacy, ability, physical challenges and learning disabilities.

2 Towards self-regulationSelf-regulation, self-determination and self-efficacy are important psychological processes,

which lead towards the empowerment of people (Fetterman 2001, 12). These concepts are based on the social cognitive view of motivation and cognition.

There is evidence that self-regulated learning consists of sub processes: Forethought, Per-formance or Volitional Control and Self-reflection (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2000, 16). Fore-thought consists of cognitive and motivational orientations. Students can monitor and control their learning by using cognitive and motivational management strategies. They also have the capacity to manage external resources (e.g. time, social interaction and help seeking). Self-regulated learning requires an awareness of reflective processes, where a learner assesses his/her own acts and achievements.

Learning on the Web requires high self-regulatory skills. In order to develop Web-based learning, we must pay more attention to learners' characteristics and help learners to be more aware of their learning processes and give guidance as to how to develop strategic learning skills.

The IQ FORM project has created interactive Web-based tools to support learners towards self-regulation and collaborative learning in virtual universities and other higher education settings (Niemi 2002a; Niemi 2002b). The project has applied Paul Pintrich’s Motivational Components of Forethought, Cognitive Strategies and Learning Skills (Pintrich & Ruohotie 2000; Boekaerts & Pin-trich &, Zeidner, 2000; Pintrich & Garcia 1991; Pintrich 1999; 1995).

Forethought: Expectation of Success, Performance Anxiety, Task Value and Self-Efficacy According to Paul Pintrich (2000) and Barry Zimmerman (2000) forethought includes the

learner's own beliefs about his/her own ability to perform a task, his/her beliefs of self-efficacy and control, and his/her expectancy for success. These are related to the student's self-regulation and metacognitive control. Learners who believe in their ability to perform a task are more likely to evaluate their progress; and in conflicting situations, they may apply various cognitive strategies. Performance anxiety refers to learners' emotional reactions and disturbances, which may decrease

3

their cognitive capacity. Highly anxious students do not use appropriate learning strategies, even if they study and try as hard as their peers. Task value consists of the intrinsic interest and utility of task or course. There is evidence that the components of the forethought consist of prerequisite skills and attitudes necessary for successful learning (Pintrich 2000; Zimmermann 2000).

Strategies in learning: Time management, Self-management, Persistency, Help seeking strategies

Resource management strategies assist learners in managing the environment and the re-sources available (e.g. time, own efforts and other people). Pintrich and McKeachie consider self-management as the most important learning strategy and as a nexus between motivation and interac-tion (Ruohotie 2000, 20; Pintrich & McKeachie 2000).

Learning skills: Rehearsal, Critical thinking, Finding essential points, Connecting newer and older knowledge, Keywords and advance organizers, Application of theories, and Self-assess-ment Learning skills may be called cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The dimensions are rel-atively broad and functionally complex processes of deep learning. Learners utilize these strategies in the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information. In the IQ test battery, the strategies have been labelled as skills, because the aim is for the learners to become skilful in using these strategies; and they could even learn new skills to manage their learning (Ruohotie & Nokelainen 2000, 155-175).

3 Towards collaborative learning

There is a common agreement of the benefits of collaborative learning to individual learn-ing. Researchers report that cooperation increases problem-solving abilities, positive attitudes to-ward studies, positive self-esteem, willingness to try difficult tasks and so on (Strom, Strom & Moore 1999). The benefits of collaborative learning are found in reinforcing individual capabilities by deepening the learning process of an individual. It happens already in the beginning of the work when negotiating together about the goals of the work, sharing tacit knowledge of the subject in ori-entation of the work.

Although this successfulness has got its´ evidence from traditional learning settings, most of the latest learning platforms take serious consider to social dimensions of learning and see learning as a social process also in virtual settings (Laister & Kober 2002). There is a direction of the design of learning spaces from that of supporting single users searching for and contributing information alone to the collective and social processing of information (Mark 2001).

The benefits of collaborative work are encouraging but one must be aware of that fact, that it demands special features from a learner. To work and learn collaboratively is not an easy way to study and there is no short way to collaborative learning. It requires basic skills in teamwork and in interaction skills, such as listening to others, encouraging team members, demonstrating empathy or negotiating conflicts (Strom, Strom & Moore 1999). The demands of collaborative learning are sim-ilar to the general demands of working life today. As Häkkinen (2001) reminds, deep learning is a hard and laborious process and cooperation does not automatically produce deep learning.

4

4 The IQ FORM tools on WWW

The name “IQ FORM” refers to the idea that technological learning environments and plat-forms should be “intelligent” in supporting students with different abilities to grow as learners. The IQ FORM system is one of the services offered to members of the Finnish Virtual University, which is an alliance of all the universities in Finland. In the IQ FORM system, there are tools for an individual learner and teacher (the IQ Learn) and for a Web-course group (the IQ Team). The IQ Learn offers tools for a learner to develop his/her personal strategic learning skills, and the IQ Team offers information about group processes and tools for collaborative learning and knowledge cre-ation.

The IQ Learn is available in English, Finnish and Swedish and freely down loadable, and consists of three elements (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/iqform/):

1. The interactive test bank, with three questionnaire sets for students' self-evaluation (see Appendix 2), - Motivational components: Forethought, Cognitive Strategies, and Learning Skills

2. The tutoring sets, with a hypertext structure for each sub component of the tests, - Tutoring students towards self-regulation - Additional guidelines for teachers

3. A learning diary for the reflection of learners' experiences and test profiles.

The main idea of the IQ Learn tool is to increase a learner’s self-knowledge and to raise the need to evaluate and develop one’s self-regulatory and learning skills. The tutoring texts and in-cluded assignments (Virtanen 2002), that encourage self-reflection, provide useful tools for learners to develop their self-regulation. When using the learning diary and discussion forum student’s skills of reflection develop. The personal learning diary can also be used in the evaluation process. A learner may email his or her learning diary texts to the teacher and get feedback about his or her de-velopment as a learner. Though in a process of becoming self-regulative, interaction plays an im-portant role, the feedback may also come from a non-human source. In addition to teacher-tutor’s feedback, the IQ Learn system automatically gives the learner responses through the test results, of-fering information about how to enhance one’s learning to become more self-regulatory.

The IQ Team is a tool that is developed to help students to work collaboratively in virtual learning. Its aim is to promote students´ participatory skills, enrich knowledge and understanding about group roles, group processes and group dynamics. The IQ Team will be available in English and Finnish in September 2003. It consists of:

1. The interactive test bank, with three questionnaire sets for students' self-evaluation (see Appendix 3), - Group Roles, Social Interdependence, and Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Process

2. The tutoring sets (Launonen & Raehalme 2003), with a hypertext structure for each sub component of the tests, - Tutoring student group towards collaboration and shared knowledge creation 3. A joint learning diary “the Log book” for reflections, discussion and knowledge creation.

5

5 Modes of inquiryThe research design consists of several phases. Each of them has provided the basis for the

next phase, to develop the Web-based tools for supporting learners’ self-regulation and collaborat-ive learning skills, phases 1 and 2 concerning self-regulation and the IQ Learn tool, and phases 3 and 4 concerning collaborative learning and IQ Team tool.

5.1 Phase 1: Collecting data from different universities' student groups to identify their differences as self-regulated learners

Data Source: The questionnaire consisted of the questions concerning students’ demo-graphic background, tutorial help received during the studies, and of the measurement of Metacog-nitive Learning Strategies based on Paul Pintrich’s Motivated Strategies for a Learning Question-naire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Carcia, and McKeachie, 1993). Its new version, developed for a vo-cational higher education context (Ruohotie & Nokelainen 2000), was modified for university set-tings (IQ-Research group 2001b). In January 2001, the data was collected from five universities in Finland. A total of 256 (127 male, 126 female students) responses were obtained. The students came from five different disciplines (Humanities and Art, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Teacher Education, Technology and Science, and Agriculture and Forestry), mostly 21 to 24 –year old stu-dents (mean age 24.1; standard deviation 4.6). The respondents were mostly first or second year stu-dents, approximately 60 % of them had completed 20 to 60 study credits (160 study credits is usu-ally required for a master’s degree). Most of the students reported having good study motivation and were satisfied with their major. Most of the students (60 %) also said that they had been pro-ceeding well in their studies.

Methods: the data was analyzed using percentages, correlations with gender, age and motiv-ation, and experiences of tutorial guidance.

Results: University students do not usually get much tutoring regarding their self-regulatory processes. 68.2% of all students had received little or no tutoring at all for their learning skills. Only 4.7% had received much and 27.1% some tutoring during their first two years of study. Students of Behavioral Sciences had received more tutoring than other students (see Table 1 in Appendix 1). Females seemed to benefit more from tutorial guidance than males (see Tables 1, 2, and 3 in Ap-pendix 1). Older students used more developed learning strategies than younger ones. Critical think-ing seems to increase with age (see Table 4 in Appendix 1). Students with more tutorial guidance used more advanced learning strategies than students who had received less or no tutorial guidance. Students with a higher study motivation used learning strategies more efficiently (see Table 3 in Appendix 1). Self-assessment skills are explained by study motivation, age and tutorial guidance. Students with high study motivation reflect on their own learning, and this may help them to main-tain their study motivation (see table 4 in Appendix 1) (Nevgi 2002a). Students of Behavioral Sci-ences and Teacher Education used more effective learning skills. However, students of the Human-ities and Art or Agriculture and Forestry were found to have higher performance anxiety than the others (see more details of test validation in the next chapter). Students of Technology and Science used less self-assessment in their learning, compared to the others (see Table 1 in Appendix 1).

6

5.2 Phase 2: Validating self-regulative dimensions for interactive self-evaluation tests on the WWW

Data Source: The same empirical data, collected from five universities, was used in validat-ing the structure of the tests.

Methods: The following methods were used: (1) an exploratory factor analysis Maximum Likelihood with Varimax rotation (4 – 10 factor models) in three sub scales, (2) Confirmatory factor analysis of factor solutions, based on theoretical frameworks, (3) an examination of each separate factor by using factor loading plots of two-dimensional principal component space, and estimating the goodness-of-fit using a chi-square (χ 2) test and other goodness-of-fit statistics, and (4) an ex-amination of the homogeneity of each factor, using Cronbach’s alpha (Nevgi 2001; Nevgi 2002a).

Results: After the validation process, three tests of self–regulated learning were accepted (IQ-Research group 2001). Their components and Cronbach's alpha scores are presented in Table 1.

Forethought of Learning(4 x 5 items)

Expectations of success .78Performance anxiety .75Task value .77Self–efficacy .62

Strategies in Learning(4 x 5 items)

Time management .71Self-management .77Persistency .75Help seeking strategies .74

Learning skills(3 x 7 items)

Rehearsal .42Critical thinking .65Finding essential points .53Connecting newer and older knowledge .60Keywords and advance organizers .60Application of theories .71Self-assessment .60

Table 1. Factors in the validation process of the IQ Learn tests.

5.2.1 Forethought of Learning

5.2.1.1 The factor model of forethought of learning

The exploratory factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood with Varimax rotation) was run in or-der to examine the factorial structure of the Forethought of learning scale with 26 items. The Four-factor and Five-factor solutions were compared (Nevgi 2001) and the Four-factor solution was se-lected for further analysis. The Four-factor solution explained 45.0 % of variance. Homogeneity analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha showed that the factors were reliable and reasonable (see table 1). The examination of each separate factor by using factor loading plots of two-dimensional principal component space helped to determine the variables, which did not fit into the confirmatory model (Nevgi 2002a).

7

5.2.1.2 Dimensions of Forethought of Learning

The Expectation of Success factor describes the expectancy component in students’ motiv-ation for studies. A student with high values in this factor is expecting to achieve good results in his/her studies and sees in advance himself/herself performing the task well. Examination of the factor revealed that it consisted of two dimensions: the expectation for good grades and the belief in his/her own ability to learn and to have study success (Nevgi 2001).

The Performance Anxiety factor represents the affective domain of a student’s personal-ity. A student with high values in Performance Anxiety finds the test situation emotionally stressful, and due to this cannot concentrate on his/her performance freely. The factor had two complement-ary components: a) anxiousness due to a comparison of own performance with one’s peers' per-formance, and b) nervousness during the test situation. The comparison to peer’s performance is stressful because of feelings of inferiority. It is normal to be alert and experience a little nervous-ness in test situations, but this feeling can become so strong that it prevents the student from per-forming in way that is best for him/her. The homogeneity of the factor was found reasonable (Nevgi 2001).

Task value factor was separated as a third factor. It was originally called Meaningfulness of Studies, and the factor consisted of two dimensions: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. According to Pekka Ruohotie (2000), the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be described as one dimension, where a person is both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to studies. A student with high val-ues on this factor is interested in his/her studies because s/he values both the career possibilities and the knowledge s/he achieves by studying. The model of one-factor was tested by confirmatory ana-lysis, using seven to ten variables in order to discover the most homogenous solution (Nevgi 2001).

The Self-Efficacy factor could be separated into two different dimensions: a) Self-efficacy as a belief in one’s own ability, and b) Self-efficacy as a belief in one’s own effort. The variables for the factor were selected to describe self-efficacy as a belief in one’s own effort. The factor will thus stress the meaning of intrinsic control beliefs. A student with high values in this factor trusts in his/her own abilities and believes that through his/her own effort, the goal of the studies can be achieved. The factor correlated highly with the Expectation for success factor revealing that there is a common attitude behind the two factors. Students who expect to succeed in their studies, also trust their abilities and do their best to achieve the learning goals. The homogeneity of the factor was reasonable (Nevgi 2001).

5.2.2 Strategies in Learning

5.2.2.1 The factor model of Strategies in Learning

The strategies in Learning scale was analyzed with an explorative factor analysis (Maximum likelihood). The four-factor model explained 39.1 % of variance and it was selected for further ana-lysis. A confirmatory factor analysis model was applied to estimate the four-factor model of the Strategies in Learning scale (Nevgi 2001; 2002a). The statistical fit for the model was not very high, and based to homogeneity analysis some items were excluded and some reformulated (Nevgi 2002a). However, the factors were reliable (Cronbach’s Alphas changed from .71 to .77, see table 1).

5.2.2.2 Dimensions of Strategies in Learning

8

Time management factor describes a student’s ability to control and manage the time to be used for studies. Students with high values in the time management factor are effective in their use of time and they make realistic timetables for their studies. They can evaluate in advance how much time should be reserved for a certain study task. One item of the dimension differed from other vari-ables comprising only one dimension, and it was reformulated (Nevgi 2002a).

Self-management in learning describes students’ ability to control and monitor learning processes and to change the amount of effort demanded for different study tasks The homogeneity of the factor proved to be reasonable (Nevgi 2001; 2002a). Students achieving high values on this factor can evaluate the effort needed in their studies, and adjust their efforts flexibly, according to the degree of difficulty and complexity in study tasks.

Persistency is seen as a foresight and strength to continue studying facing difficulties and/or dull study tasks. A persistent student seeks the final goal of his/her studies. The examination of the factor loading plots, in two-dimensional space, showed that the factor was one-dimensional (Nevgi 2002a). This factor was not expected, according to the theoretical framework (Pintrich & Ruohotie 2000). However, students with foresight in their studies can cope with the inconvenience of a par-ticular study period, and thus overcome the difficulties they meet.

The help-seeking factor represents a student’s social ability to ask for help from peers, re-garding his/her study problems. This factor resembles Sternberg’s notion of practical intelligence (Sternberg et al 2000). A student with high values on this factor knows when he/she needs help and can also identify the person/s to turn to for help. The analysis of factor loading plots in two-dimen-sional PC space revealed one of the items should be excluded from the factor (Nevgi 2002a).

5.2.3 Learning Skills

5.2.3.1 The factor model of Learning Skills

For the Learning Skills scale, the seven-factor solution was examined. The reliability of the factors was examined with Cronbach's Alpha (see table 1). A confirmatory factor analysis model was applied to estimate the seven-factor model of the Learning Skills scale, and the statistical fit of this model was reasonable. After the reliability analysis of separate factors, the items with low cor-relation were excluded or reformulated (Nevgi 2001; 2002a).

5.2.3.2 Dimensions of Learning Skills

Rehearsal strategy of learning is outlined as a basic cognitive strategy, with elaboration and organizational strategies of learning. Each of these strategies has a basic and a complex version, depending on the nature of the learning task (Pintrich & McKeachie 2000, 41). Weinstein & Meyer (1986, 137) have shown that rehearsal strategies are necessary at the beginning of a learning pro-cess, when a novice starts to develop towards gaining expert skills. The items of the factor were re-formulated in order to achieve a more homogenous factor (Nevgi 2002a).

Critical thinking strategy is described as a students’ ability to solve problems, to make critical evaluations, and to make comparisons. Critical thinking appears different in physical sci-ences than in poetry or literature, and demands different qualities in thinking arising from the very

9

nature of the subject (Pintrich & McKeachie 2000). Students with high values on this factor ap-proach the subject they study evaluating the facts and pursuing the evidence-based knowledge.

Finding the essential points strategy describes how students concentrate and discover the essential and central ideas in their learning material. A good student does not only take notes of all the material s/he studies, but also organizes learning material into more important and less import -ant areas. Weinstein and Mayer (1986, 322) describe the organizational strategies for complex learning as a student’s effort to identify the main ideas and important supporting details from the text they are studying. Ausubel (1978) has used the term advanced organizer when a student uses some beforehand given figure or orientating material to activate his/her view of the subject to be studied. In order to improve the homogeneity of the factor, one item was reformulated (Nevgi 2002a). Students with high values on this factor approach their study task, arranging it in advance into the essential and less essential subjects.

Connecting newer and older knowledge strategy means that a student is able to combine new knowledge with his/her previous knowledge and construct the meaning of studied subjects. Students with high values on this factor, for example, use their previous notes and compare the new knowledge with these. They attempt to understand how the previously-learned information is con-nected to the new things, and actively construct and develop their concepts of the subject.

Use of keywords and advance organizers strategy resembles the previous focus on essen-

tial strategy. However, the focus in this strategy is that a student clarifies the subject by using keywords, in order to organize the material to be studied both before and during the study period. A student achieving high values on the factor, for example takes notes of the central concepts and ideas and classifies them. S/he uses these keywords during the review period of the study process, and thus the review becomes more complex and leads to a deeper understanding in learning.

Application of theories strategy can be described as a student application of learned theor-ies, new things, into different everyday situations, or as a comparison of theories. The transfer of learning resembles this factor. Students with high values on the factor approach their study tasks by testing the new knowledge in their work or life situation, trying to find out how pragmatic the new theory is.

Self-assessment strategy is used when a student concentrates on thinking over the learned things and asks questions, creates analogies, or explains the things s/he has learned. This strategy can also be described as an elaboration strategy. Students achieving high values on this factor tend to write learning diaries and actively reflect on their own learning process.

5.2.4. The IQ Learn tests and self-regulated learning

The dimensions described above form the basis of the interactive on-line questionnaires of the IQ Learn on the Web (Appendix 2). Zimmermann (2000) has presented the dynamic model for self-regulated learning and first two of tests, Forethought of Learning, Strategies in Learning fit into that model very well. Forethought prepares the student for the performance activities, and stu-dent’s expectation for success and self-efficacy beliefs guide his/her approach to the studies. The anxiousness in performance prevents the student to achieve the learning goals. Task value refers to the student expectations for the utility of the course or task, and the importance and meaningfulness of studies. By using the IQ Learn tool a student can become aware of his/her approach attitude to-wards the studies and thus be able to control and manage own motives for learning. In Zimmer-mann’s model the next phase of self-regulated learning is performance or volitional control, in which the attention focusing, self-instruction and self-monitoring are included. In our test for Learn-ing Strategies as resembling the performance control four types of resource managements were dif-

10

ferentiated. In order to be able to manage own performance a student needs ability to manage time h/she has for studies, and to manage the efforts needed for learning. The interesting finding con-cerned persistence, which revealed to be a necessary resource for students in their learning manage-ment. The student should be also able to seek help from teachers and peers and recognize the need for help. Using the test for Learning Strategies students can become aware of their performance controlling strategies and how they cope with different learning situations.

Learning Skills Test includes the self-assessment strategy, which can be seen also in Zim-mermann’s dynamic model, where the last phase of self-regulation is self-reflection. Learning skills tell also to the students how they study and the ways they tend to use in their learning. Learning skills refer to the deep learning approach, and by using the test a student can realize that there are also some other meaningful ways to study as the ones s/he has been accustomed to use.

5.3 Phase 3: Collecting data from different universities' student groups to identify their differences as collaborative learners

Data Source: The pilot study was conducted in February 2002. The data was collected from four Finnish universities (Helsinki, Oulu, Tampere, and Joensuu) using a questionnaire. The ques-tionnaire was consisted of four major aspects: 1) The Roles in a Group, 2) Social Interdependence, 3) Group process, and 4) Knowledge Creating Process. A total of 259 usable responses were ob-tained, 177 from female students and 82 from male students. The youngest respondents were 20 years old and the oldest was 55 years old. Most of the respondents (54,8%) were 23-32 years old. The students came from four different disciplines (Humanities and Art, Social and Behavioral Sci-ences, Teacher education, and Technology and Science).

Methods: The students used a 5-point Likert scale in all tests. The scale was from 1 to 5 (does not describe me at all – describes me very well). Analysis consisted of the following statisti-cal methods: 1) principal component analysis (PCA), 2) exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 3) con-firmatory factor analysis (CFA), and 4) one-way analysis of variance (One-Way ANOVA).

Results: With regard to credit generation, 64 % of students had completed 21-100 study credits (160 study credits is usually required for a master’s degree). Only a few (10,2%) of students had received much tutorial guidance in learning skills and (13,1%) in group work skills. The stu-dents were mainly more cooperative than competitive and more know how sharers and encouraging than rejective or avoiding. Those who had got most tutoring in learning skills shared their know how more than the others. Female respondents were more encouraging and cooperative, males as-sessed themselves more dominant and competitive. The oldest respondents (ages varied from 33 to 55) were most likely to encourage and to share know how compared to the other age groups. The characteristics of different major subjects did not differ a lot, but some trends were found. Com-pared to students of other major subjects the students of Humanities and Art were the most individ-ualistic and competitive and they were less likely to share know how. Students of Teacher education were most collaborative and encouraging. Students of Social and Behavioral Science were less competitive and most likely to share know how. Students of Technology and Science could be de-scribed as most dominant and least avoiding. The differences between different majors were statisti-cally significant but all the means varied from 1.75 to 3.93 (Launonen 2003, 61-74.)

5.4 Phase 4: Validating dimensions of collaborative learning for interactive self-evaluation tests on the WWW

11

Data Source: The same empirical data, collected from four universities in February 2002, was used in validating the structure of the tests.

Methods: Analysis consisted of the following statistical methods: 1) principal component analysis (PCA), 2) exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and 3) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Results: After the validation process, three tests of collaborative learning (IQ Research group 2002a,b,c) were accepted (see Appendix 3). Their components and Cronbach's alpha scores are presented in Table 2. In those components that lack the alpha score one or more items have been added to the original unit.

Group Roles(6 x 3 items)

Rejection .83Dominance .83Encouraging .77Conforming .72Sharing know how .74Avoidance .71

Social Interdepence(3 x 3 items)

Individualistic .89Competitive .80Cooperative

Group Processes and Know-ledge Creating Process(6 x 3 items)

Atmosphere .80Goal orientation and commitment .73Innovation and creativityThe benefits of doing together .78The utilization of differences .87The role of the tutor

Table 2. Factors in the validation process of the IQ Team tests.

12

5.4.1 Group Roles

5.4.1.1 The Factor model of Group Roles

The aim was to operationalize group roles. One step in this process involved reducing items from five to three. In the web tests should be as short as possible. Another step was to test the ho-mogeneity of each factor and this was accomplished using Cronbach´s alpha. The reliability ana-lysis of factors revealed that all factors offer acceptable reliability (Alpha varies from .71 to .83) after the two poorest items has been deleted from every factor. The Correlations of factors were ex-amined next. A promax-rotation approach was called for as an explorative factor analysis. The Re-jection factor and the Avoidance factor correlated positively strongly (r= .529), and the Encour-aging factor and the Sharing information factor correlated positively strongly (r = .605). Also the Avoidance factor and the Conforming factor correlated positively quite strongly (r= .401).

5.4.1.2 Dimensions of Group Roles

The Rejection factor demonstrated acceptable reliability when two items had been deleted. A rejected person feels hurt, if someone disagrees with his or her ideas and opinions. People tend to think they are disliked, or that others are angry with them, when they encounter disagreement.

The Dominance factor also tested for high reliability when two items were deleted. A dom-inant person has a strong opinion of almost everything. A dominant person likes argumentation; when involved in an argument with others, s/he will become more and more certain that s/he is cor -rect, and argue more and more strongly for his/her own point of view. S/he tries to overpower those who disagree.

As for the Encouraging factor, the reliability of this factor was good when two items had been deleted. A person exhibiting this trait is one who gives power and belief that efforts and contri-butions of the members for the group, are worthwhile. S/he expresses his/her willingness to cooper-ate with other group members, encouraging all members to participate and gives in difficult situ-ations. S/he is always ready to help if someone needs his/her help.

The Conforming factor tested for good reliability when two items were deleted. A con-formist is a person who facilitates group work. Group members influence his/her opinions. S/he conforms easily to the norms, rules and decisions of the group. The ability to adapt to different situ-ations reduces conflicts inside the group.

The factor Sharing information received acceptable reliability when two items were de-leted. Groups need this kind of persons who share their information, ideas and opinions. Sharing in-formation promotes group work. A person exhibiting this trait is open and cooperative with the en-tire group. S/he wants to promote the success of all members and the group as a whole by sharing his/her resources for good of the group.

The Avoidance factor tested for an acceptable reliability level when two items were de-leted. This kind of person tries to avoid conflict situations and individuals who argue with him/her. S/he keeps his/her ideas and opinions to himself or herself when others disagree. In conflict situ-ations s/he stays quiet. Of course, if one remains quiet in a web-based course such a person does not exist as a member of the group.

13

5.4.2 Social Interdependence

The basic premise of social interdependence theory is that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with one another. Social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by actions of the others (Deutsch 1949a, 1962). There are two types of social interdependence: cooperative and com-petitive. Individuality is absence in situations of social interdependence. (Johnson & Johnson 2000, 99-101.)

5.4.2.1 The factor model of Social Interdependence

The clearest approach for testing Social Interdependence appeared when the principal axis factor was explored by promax-rotation. Before that could occur principal component analysis and reliability analysis of factors were conducted. Based on these analyses, the three-factor solution was selected for further examination of the Social Interdependence Scale. To achieve the principal com-ponent analysis factor loading plots of two-dimensional principal component space were utilised.

5.4.2.2 Dimensions of Social InterdependenceFrom the Individualistic factor one variable was deleted because it was stated negatively

“It bothers me if I have to work with others,” accounting for the fact that it did not fit properly. An individualistic person likes to work alone. Productivity increases when s/he can determine the time and place for working. When working independently other persons’ needs do not have to be taken into account. Rather, s/he can concentrate to what s/he is doing.

In the Competitive factor the variable “I like to compare myself with others” was deleted. The respondents may understand the meaning of the statement in a different way than was meant. Comparing may differ from competing. A competitive person likes games. S/he wants to be better than others and s/he wants to show it for herself/himself and also for others. S/he works hard to win.

In the Cooperative factor there were no possible solutions to use three variables. Two vari-ables were deleted and one new variable “I like working in a group.” was transferred to the Social Interdependence Scale. Cooperative persons like to work with others and they usually get better res-ults in collaboration than working alone.

5.4.3 Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Process

In the beginning of the developing process there was an idea that this part of IQ Team con-sists of two different tests that measure 1) a team process and 2) a knowledge creating process. Dur-ing the validation process it came clear that it was adequate to combine the two tests to one test, but the work began with two separate tests.

The test to measure group process is based on the model of group process of Tom Douglas (1979). Douglas` group categories (interaction, structural, locomotive and molar categories) provide a good basic tool for building a test, and every category was taken into consideration and translated to a concrete action item that was relevant to a student’s group participation. According to Douglas (1979, 53-73) the basic category is interaction. It is not possible for a group to exist without interac-tion. Interaction is considered to be a generative factor in all the other processes and it constitutes the whole of group behaviour. Factors affecting interaction are numerous but in translation to items in a test, the connection was made to learning and ease of communication. The structural category includes all the group-building processes that are instrumental in effecting change and evolution in

14

the group. Commitment to the group and the role of the tutor is emphasized in items associated with this phenomenon. The locomotive category includes all those processes that move a group towards its objectives. Decision making, purpose and goal formation are asked to be evaluated in items so that collaboration in the processes is stressed. The molar category refers to those processes that group members recognize but find difficult to define. It contains large elements of emotional re-sponse that are not structural. (Douglas 1979, 65-73).

The knowledge creation test was planned in the framework of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, 84-89). They understood learning and knowledge creation as a conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit forms where it can be combined, followed by an internalization process where this new knowledge rebuilds learners knowledge structure. The process of knowledge creation in practice is described in five steps: 1. sharing tacit knowledge, 2.creating concepts, 3. justifying concepts, 4.building a prototype and 5.cross leveling knowledge. Enabling conditions are autonomy, requisite variety, redundancy and intention. Items in the test were developed to assess the different steps and enabling conditions.

5.4.3.1 The factor model of Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Process

In the validation process tests for group process and knowledge creation process were com-bined. Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis six group process qualities were iden-tified: Atmosphere, Goal orientation and commitment, Innovation, Benefits of collaborative work, Synergy of group members' differences, and Role of the tutor.

5.4.3.2 Dimensions of Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Process

The three highest loading items of the Atmosphere factor, which successfully expressed the content of the factor, were selected to form a variable. The climate of a group affects the way the group works, e.g. in terms of trust and openness. In this factor the general atmosphere of the group, the openness of conversation and the mutual trust of the group members are evaluated. Positive at-mosphere promotes efficiency in goal achieving, learning and motivation. The Goal orientation and commitment factor describes the acting and the goal orientation of the group. In this factor the selected items emphasize the goal awareness and mutual and joint understanding of the goals. Commitment means devotion and loyalty to the goals of the team. If in-dividual members of the team believe that the team’s goals are also their own goals, they work com-mitted and individual satisfaction increases. A clear vision of what the group is striving to achieve is tied to commitment and individual and mutual accountability. When all the group members share the vision, which is found meaningful and challenging, social support and peer helping exists.

In the Innovation and creativity factor the collaborative nature of knowledge creation is emphasized by item “The feedback given by group members generated new ideas” and the produc-tivity of innovations in the group is assessed by a new one “It was produced new ideas in a group”. Item “Innovations were typical for group activities” is connected to creative dimension of atmos-phere of the group.

In the Benefits of doing together factor the benefits are bidden to learning process. Collab-orative methods promote the use of abstract representations while justifying ones own opinions to others and establishing a common ground for cooperation. By sharing ideas and assumptions with others learner becomes aware of her own thinking processes.

15

The Utilization of differences factor includes the capability to benefit from the diversity of the group in the working process. The attitude to different and even contradictory views and con-flicts is also brought up, if conflicts wake interesting discussions or if they cause silence.

The items “Tutor had a significant role in a group” and “The group did not need the tutor to help it“ in the Role of the tutor factor were unclear. How should the emphasized role of the tutor be understood? Does it mean that the group is not capable of working by itself or that the group knows how to make use of the tutor? Was the group in fact self regulated or was the tutor so weak that it was useless to use his contribution? Because of the ambiguous construction these items were left out and replaced by new items: “A tutor made the group to take responsibility for their work.” and “A tutor gave enough support and encouragement.”

5.4.3.3 The IQ Team tests and the theories of collaborative learning

To develop the tests that measure the processes of group and knowledge creation it is inter-esting to examine more closely how well the final 18 items correspond to the theoretical framework. At least to some extent all main entities of the theoretical framework - the group process model by Douglas (1979) and the theory of knowledge creation process by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) - have been integrated into the items. The first step of the knowledge creation process, sharing of the tacit knowledge, however, is assessed indirectly through the link to trustful atmosphere, mutual un-derstanding of the goals of working and the profitability of expressing student’s own ideas. Group process as a phenomenon is so complex that it is not possible to include all the factors that have in-fluence, but the main factors of the Douglas model can be found. In the test itself, the ability to util -ize diversity of members has been emphasized more than in the theories. The final assessment of the tests can be established on the test’s ability to reveal essential knowledge for its users about group behaviour and the group processes. Development work will go on with pilot studies where data is gathered to IQ data bank. It will be used to develop the IQ Team tests further.

6 Evaluation of the pilot use of the IQ Learn on the WWW

6.1 The application of the results for the IQ Learn toolAll the dimensions described above in chapter 5.2 formed the basis of the interactive on-line

questionnaires (as shown in Appendix 2) and tutoring sets on the Web (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/iqform/) (Virtanen 2002). Students may select one or more tests (see Figure 1). They get their test results on-line as visual profiles and with mean values and standard deviations of their virtual study group (see Figure 2). The graphics of the tool visualize an idea of empowerment through learning.

Students may compare their test profiles during different phases of their studies. All com-ponents of each test have a connection with tutoring sets. By clicking visual symbols of the test res-ults (e.g. Coping with test anxiety), students get access to the hypertext tutoring sites (see Figure 3). Learners are encouraged to learn the skills of self-regulation. Tutoring packages are constructed on the same theoretical basis as the questionnaires. The IQ Learn provides teachers with information on how to support students to learn self-regulative skills. The teacher only has access to the group profiles.

16

Figure 1. The example of the IQ Learn questionnaire set.

Figure 2. The example of the IQ Learn graphic test result.

17

Figure 3. The example of the IQ Learn hypertext tutoring site for a student.

6.2 Pilot use groups

The research group collected data from the pilot use of the IQ Learn tool in the spring and autumn terms of 2002, to further develop the tool. The pilot groups were:

1. Learning Psychology Web course, Virtual Open University of Helsinki (N=35)2. Communication Sciences Web course, University of Tampere (N=18)3. Communication and Business on the Internet, Helsinki Business Polytechnic (N=18)4. Orientation to University Studies Web course, University of Helsinki (N=37)

In addition to these courses, data was collected from several individual teachers and students who used the IQ Learn.

Learning Psychology Web course and Communication Sciences Web course

Students of the Learning Psychology Web course and the Communication Sciences Web course were asked to describe their experiences of the IQ Learn by writing short essays. In addition teachers of these courses were interviewed through open discussions about their experiences of the main advantages and disadvantages of using the IQ Learn to support students’ self-regulated learn-

18

ing. The feed back of the students and interviews of the teachers were categorized using content analysis.

Students of the Learning Psychology Web course (N=35) explored their profiles, given by the IQ Learn, and commented on their learning processes in their learning diaries. They were asked to use the IQ Learn (freely), according to their own interests, while studying on the course and to write in their learning diaries how they used the IQ Learn assessing and tutoring tool. At the end of the course, they were asked to compare their comments in their diaries with their IQ Learn results.

Some younger students on the Learning Psychology Web course felt that the IQ Learn had helped them to find the reason for their lack in learning.

“Using the IQ Learn, I could test my learning skills and there I found the reason for my lazi-ness. I lack time management, and when I run into trouble in my studies, I easily give up. So I can see that there is plenty to develop in my learning skills and strategies.” (female, age 24)

Most of the older students on the Learning Psychology Web course reported that the tests did not give them anything new.

”According to the IQ Learn test, my learning skills are quite as high as I expected.” (fe-male, age 36)

Students of the Communication Sciences Web course (N=18) used the IQ Learn tool inde-pendently, without any kind of guidance or teachers’ recommendations. After the course they were asked to consider whether the tool gave support to their self-assessment skills.

Most of the students on the Communication Sciences Web course considered the IQ Learn tool as useful for self-assessment. Not all respondents got new information about themselves as learners from the tests, but they would have recommended it for students in the early stage of their studies or to anyone who wants to develop his/her learning skills.

The pilot use of the IQ Learn gave evidence that young students benefited best from the IQ Learn. If students have a very fixed learning style, they do not want to change it. The concrete is-sues of self-regulation, such as time-management and help-seeking strategies, were considered to be very useful. The teachers’ main feedback was that self-regulation should be integrated into the Web courses as an essential pedagogical aspect. Even though the aim is self-regulation, students need guidance and activation to use the tool, which supports their development towards self-regulation (Nevgi 2002b; Virtanen & Niemi 2002).

Communication and Business in an Internet course

In the Helsinki Business Polytechnic, students (N=18) described their experiences of using the IQ Learn by writing short essays. The tool was not in use on this course, but the students were asked to write about the visual, functional, and useful aspects of the tool. The teacher of this course reported about her findings while using the tool and she was also interviewed through open discus-sions.

The students gave positive feedback on the clearness and freshness of the looks of the tool. Navigation in the system was generally found clear end easy. One third of the respondents did not see the tests as useful for themselves. They had not familiarized themselves with the tutorial texts. In contrast, those who mentioned the tutorial as a helpful tool had found profitable links, tips and recommendations for learning, and new information about learning strategies. Also, the teacher of this course gave feedback mainly about the functionality of the IQ Learn tool. She found the IQ

19

Learn tool to be rather functional, but made significant suggestions, for example how to develop the tool to become more usable for all the commonly used browsers. On the grounds of the feedback given by this pilot group, the IQ Learn tool’s technology was further developed.

Orientation to University studies Web course

The students of the Orientation to University Studies (N=37) were asked to fill in two tests: Learning strategies and Learning skills. Based on the test results, the students made a plan about which fields of their skills they wanted to develop. The assignment included the planning, imple-mentation and reporting of the development work and how they succeeded in carrying out their plans. Nine students were interviewed after they had used the IQ Learn tool. The data from the in-terviews and the students’ reports were analyzed using qualitative methods, e.g. categorization.

Most of the students’ self-concept as learners had strengthened, as they viewed the results of the self-assessment tests. Six interviewed students had been studying at a university or a college be-fore the course. The more earlier studies students had performed and the older they were, the less new information the tests gave them. The younger students had got new information about the com-ponents connected to learning, e.g. critical thinking, which they considered to be an important new skill needed in university studies. The interviewed students reported that the test results gave posit-ive feedback, and encouraged them in general, and motivated them to develop their learning skills.

Those who had read the tutorial texts found them useful. They had obtained new informa-tion about the components that affect learning. One student said:

“The best use of it was that I started to analyze them. There are self-assessment and critical thinking components, etc. and I can observe these in myself. I know they are all right at the moment, but now I know I can develop them and have an effect on them. Before using this tool, I thought about these things as a whole… I as a learner… but now they have become divergent variables. The tool gave names for different things.” (female, age 25)

Besides the information about the components affecting learning, those interviewed men-tioned several practical pieces of advice they found in the IQ Learn Tutoring tool concerning, for example, time management, coping with test anxiety, help-seeking strategies, critical thinking, and connecting new and old information. Also, the teacher’s tutorial was found interesting and useful for the personal growth of the students of Education.

The IQ Learn tutorial for a learner includes assignments where the learners are asked to think over their habits of learning. Some students mentioned that these assignments were encour-aging while pushing towards an evaluation of ones own learning skills and habits:

“It made me think more about myself, what I want to be and why and what I want to study. It became clear to me that thinking about these things is one learning skill. Now I can observe my learning skills; the IQ Learn brought forward different skills. Earlier I had been acting, but I had not been thinking about how I had been acting.” (female, age 23)

Most of those interviewed used the IQ Learn Tutoring texts when they planned and imple-mented the development of their learning skills, though the test results were the main criterion for selecting the skill to develop. The tutorial had clarified the dimensions used in the tests and given concrete ideas and encouragement to carry out their development plans. The interviews gave evid-ence that some students changed their learning habits or adopted new strategies based on the in-formation given by the tool. A student who had studied all the tutorial texts reported she had changed her method of studying for exams and made a plan to develop her help-seeking strategies. Development plans for time management and planning were also mentioned. The youngest students

20

had plans to develop their critical thinking skills, but they saw it as difficult. On the other hand they trusted that these may develop gradually when they become more experienced as students. Many of those interviewed planned to use the tool again later to develop their learning skills further.

It became obvious that it is not an easy process to change one’s learning habits. All the stu-dents interviewed had realized there were components they could develop to get deeper into their studies. To develop one’s learning skills was found difficult, but the IQ Learn had given students practical advice on how to carry out their development plans. The greatest obstacle to overcome was the lack of time and persistency. A student related:

“There are good pieces of advice, but it is complicated to follow them through in practice. I am like a slave to my habits - I always make the same mistakes, even though I know I should act in another way. ” (female, age 27)

6.3 Common trends

According to the pilot studies, the IQ Learn tool is most useful for students who have diffi-culties in learning or who do not have stable learning strategies and skills, or who are at an early stage of their university studies. The tool gave the greatest amount of new information to young stu-dents. All the respondents mentioned the concrete issues of self-regulation. Time-management and tips to cope with test anxiety were considered as very useful to their development as learners. Most university students in their 30s and 40s had much experience in studying and working, and they were well aware of their learning skills and habits – both strengths and weaknesses. Their habits were rather fixed and in most cases they did not see any reason to change them. But most of the re-spondents of this age mentioned they would have benefited a lot if this kind of tool had been avail-able at the early stage of their university studies. Students with stable and effective learning strategies felt the system strengthened their understanding of their learning. The youngest students, who did not have experience in higher education, had the most superficial attitude towards learning. They also had a very outer-regulated approach to the IQ Learn tool. They strictly followed the as-signments given by the teacher and did not go deeply into the tool. The youngest students gained most from the system when they were guided in to use it, e.g. by giving clear assignments.

It became obvious that students gain more from the tool with the guidance of a teacher-tutor. The assignments helped the students to use the tool more extensively and intensively. The guided use of the IQ Learn tool helped students to use the tutorial texts more meaningfully while they tested their strategic learning skills. Students need guidance and activation to begin to learn their self-regulative skills. The teacher can help students by introducing the IQ Learn and integrating it as a part of the course.

7 Summary and conclusionsIn this study we discovered out that students in higher education differ in their self-regula-

tion and receive little or no tutoring for their learning skills. We have used Pintrich’s and Ruo-hotie’s, and Zimmermann’s theories of self-regulated learning as a theoretical framework to build the measurement for self-regulated dimensions of an interactive self-evaluation test on the WWW. After the validation process, three tests of self-regulated learning were accepted for the IQ Learn tool. These tests are Forethought for Learning, Learning Strategies, and Learning Skills. The valida-tion revealed that the tests for Forethought in Learning and Learning Strategies needed to be de-veloped further. Some items for factors were reformulated in order to get more homogeneity factors for the IQ Learn tool.

21

After the validation process, the IQ Learn tool was created and used in different pilot courses in order to find out how students benefited from the virtual tutoring. According to the pilot studies, the IQ Learn tool is most useful for students who have difficulties in learning or who do not have stable learning strategies and skills, or who are at an early stage of their university studies. The self-assessment tests give young students new information about their learning strategies and skills, and strengthen more experienced students’ understanding of their learning when they already have stable and effective learning strategies. The IQ Learn tool best encourages the students to develop their learning skills towards self-regulative learning when the teacher-tutor gives concrete assign-ments on how to use the tool, or guides the students towards self-reflection and self-evaluation, us-ing the various parts of the IQ Learn tool. Developing one’s action towards self-regulative learning is a long and demanding process and not many higher education students get through it alone. A technological tool, like the IQ Learn can obviously enhance learning especially at the beginning of this process.

In this study we also found out that students’ skills to collaborate differ. Johnson’s & John-son’s Group theory, Douglas’s theory of group processes and Nonaka’s & Takeuchi’s theory of shared knowledge creation has been on the basis when designing the measurement of collaborative learning skills. After validating the data three tests of collaborative learning accepted to the IQ Team tool: the tests of Group Roles; Social Interdependence and Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Processes. In September 2003, the IQ Team tool will be available on WWW and the pilot use will be launched to gather data to further develop the tool.

Tutoring towards self-regulation and collaboration is highly needed in higher education. There is too little concrete guidance to study skills and learning strategies as well as collaboration and group processes in both campus-based and virtual studies. The IQ Learn and the IQ Team provide tools for individual and group based assessments, and tutoring sets as how to advance learn-ing in virtual environments. The role of teachers is very important when using these tools. Teachers need also knowledge how to use the new tools on the WWW to support students’ learning.

22

References

Anderson, M. (2000). Individual Characteristics and Web-based Courses. In C. R. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the Word Wide Web (pp. 47-73). San Diego: Academic Press.

Ausubel, D., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000)Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Douglas, T. (1979) Group Processes in Social Work: A theoretical Synthesis. Chichester: John Wiley.

Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research and Development 45 (4), 37-64.

Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational Research in the Internet Age. Educational Re-searcher 30 (9), 22-26.

Häkkinen. P. (2001) Collaborative learning in technology-supported environments: two cases of project-enhanced science learning. In International Journal of Continuing engineering edu-cation and life-long learning. Vol 11, Nos 4/5/6, 375-390.

IQ-Research group (2001). Three MSL test sets adapted from motivation and self-regulation learn-ing tests developed by P. Pintrich and P. Ruohotie, A test about the students view on herself as a student, a test of learning strategies and a test about cognitive functions, Department of Education, University of Helsinki.

IQ-Research group (2002 a) Group roles. Based on Johnson’s & Johnson’s Group theory. Depart-ment of Education, University of Helsinki.

IQ-Research group (2002 b) Social interdependence. Based on Johnson’s & Johnson’s Group the-ory. Department of Education, University of Helsinki.

IQ-Research group (2002 c) Group processes and knowledge creation. Based on Douglas’ Model of group processes and Nonaka’s & Takeuchi’s theory of Knowledge creation. Department of Education, University of Helsinki.

Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301-333.

Laister, J. & Kober, S. (2002) Social aspects of collaborative learning in virtual learning environ-ments. Proceeding in Networked Learning Conference in Sheffield. October 2002. http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/proceedings/papers/19.htm

Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web. Educa-tional Technology Research and Development 48 (1), 45-68.

23

Launonen, A. 2003. Itsearviointivälineiden kehittäminen verkko-opiskelun tueksi sosiaalisen keskinäisen riippuvuuden ja ryhmäkäyttäytymisen arviointiin. Master’s thesis. Department of Education, University of Helsinki.

Launonen, A & Raehalme, O. 2003. IQ Team – more together. Guidebook for working together in a virtual team. Pedagogica, Publications of Faculty of Education no. 16. Helsinki, Finland.

Mark, G. (2001) Social foundations for collaboration in virtual environments. In F.T. Tschang & Tarcisio della Senta (eds.) Access to Knowledge.

Nevgi, A. (2001). Motivational strategies of students in Virtual University. Proceedings of the Evi-dence-Based Policies and Indicator Systems Third International Inter-disciplinary confer-ence held in Durham, England 4.-7. July, 203-219.

Nevgi, A. (2002a). Measurement of learning strategies – Creating a self-rating tool for students of virtual university. In H. Niemi, & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical understandings for learn-ing in virtual university (pp. 197-220). Hämeenlinna: Research Centre for Vocational Edu-cation and Training.

Nevgi, A. (2002b). Motivational strategies of Virtual University Students – Developing a Measure-ment. Paper presented at the Education and Cultural Diversities NERA’s 30th Congress 7.-9. March, Tallinn, Estonia.

Niemi, H. (2002a). The IQ FORM-tool: an information technology-based instrument for supporting effective learning in higher education. Open and distance learning in Europe and beyond re-thinking international co-operation. Proceedings of the 2002 EDEN annual conference held in Granada, Spain 16-19 June, 2002, 370-375.

Niemi, H. (2002b). Empowering learners in virtual university. In Niemi, H., & Ruohotie, P. (eds.) Theoretical understandings for learning in the virtual university. - Hämeenlinna : Research Centre for Vocational Education, 1-37.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company. USA: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Pintrich, P. R. (Ed.). (1995). “Current Issues in Research on Self-regulated Learning: A discussion with Commentaries (Special Issue)”. Educational Psychologist, 30 (4).

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-regulated Learn-ing. International Journal of Educational Research , 31 (6) , 459-470.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-regulated Learning. In Monique Boekaerts, Paul R. Pintrich and Moshe Zeidner (Ed.) Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 452-502). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Students Goal Orientation and Self-regulation in the College Classroom. In M. L. Maer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achieve-ment: Goals and self-regulatory processes (pp. 371-42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, (Vol.7).

Pintrich, P. R., & McKeachie, W. J. (2000). A Framework for Conceptualizing Student Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in the College Classroom. In P. Pintrich, & P. Ruohotie (2000). Conative Constructs and Self-regulated Learning. RCVE: Hämeenlinna, Finland.

24

Pintrich, P. R., & Ruohotie, P. (2000). Conative Constructs and Self-regulated Learning. RCVE: Hämeenlinna, Finland.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. E., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies For Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.

Ruohotie, P. (2000). Conative Constructs in Learning. In P. R. Pintrich, & P. Ruohotie (2000). Conative Constructs and Self-regulated Learning. RCVE: Hämeenlinna, Finland.

Ruohotie, P., & Nokelainen, P. (2000). Modern Modeling of Student Motivation and Self-Regu-lated Learning. In P. R. Pintrich, & P. Ruohotie (2000). Conative Constructs and Self-regu-lated Learning. RCVE: Hämeenlinna, Finland.

Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000).Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Strom, P.S., Strom R.D. & Moore, E.G. (1999) Peer and self-evaluation of teamwork skills. Journal of Adolescence 22, 539-553.

Virtanen, P. (2002) IQ FORM – Tutoring tools for virtual learning. Pedagogica, Publications of Faculty of Education no. 8. Helsinki, Finland.

Virtanen, P., & Niemi, H. (2002). Online Tutoring to Support Student’s Self-regulation and Learn-ing Skills in Virtual Learning Environments. Paper presented at the Education and Cultural Diversities NERA’s 30th Congress 7.-9. March 2002, Tallinn, Estonia.

Weinstein, C.E. & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on teaching. (pp. 315-327). 3rd print. New York: MacMillan.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspect. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Aca-demic Press.

25

Appendix 1 University students and self-regulation in learning

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations on Forethought, Strategies in Learning, and Learning Skills referring to different majors. F-test.

AN = 45M (SD)

BN = 46M (SD)

CN = 117M (SD)

DN = 35M (SD)

AllN = 243M (SD)

F-test

ForethoughtExpectations of success 3.64

(0.74)3.85 (0.66)

3.58 (0.70)

3.50(0.81)

3.63 (0.72)

2.07 n.s.

Performance anxiety 2.61 (0.99)

2.15 (0.87)

2.28 (0.80)

2.61 (0.93)

2.37 (0.88)

3.38 *

Task value:Intrinsic motivation 3.78

(0.70)3.92(0.53)

3.65 (0.72)

3.58 (0.81)

3.72 (0.71)

2.35 n.s.

Utility value 4.05(0.76)

4.13 (0.64)

4.09 (0.61)

3.79(0.83)

4.04(0.69)

1.95 n.s.

Self–efficacy 3.85(0.65)

3.94 (0.59)

4.01 (0.63)

4.02 (0.65)

3.97 (0.63)

0.82 n.s.

Strategies in LearningTime management 2.87

(0.96)2.76 (0.83)

2.80 (0.80)

2.81 (0.81)

2.81 (0.83)

0.14 n.s.

Self-management 3.29 (0.72)

3.12 (0.67)

3.15 (0.67)

3.26 (0.68)

3.19(0.68)

0.74 n.s.

Persistency 3.39(0.68)

3.40 (0.83)

3.15 (0.77)

3.16 (0.84)

3.24 (0.78)

1.84 n.s.

Help seeking strategies 3.19 (0.84)

3.53 (0.65)

3.25 (0.78)

3.41 (0.94)

3.31 (0.80)

1.96 n.s.

Learning SkillsRehearsal 3.08

(0.81)3.22 (0.86)

3.08 (0.78)

3.10 (0.69)

3.11 (0.78)

0.36 n.s.

Critical thinking 3.18 (0.80)

2.98(0.87)

2.73 (0.70)

2.89 (0.96)

2.88 (0.81)

3.78 *

Finding essential points 3.87(0.85)

3.87 (0.76)

3.54 (0.73)

3.79 (0.71)

3.70 (0.77)

3.31 *

Connecting newer and older know-ledge

4.13 (0.73)

4.12 (0.66)

3.85 (0.67)

3.99 (0.77)

3.97(0.70)

2.67 *

Keywords and advance organizers 3.59(0.90)

3.83 (0.82)

3.09 (0.83)

3.14 (0.83)

3.33 (0.89)

10.4 ***

Application of theories 3.43 (0.79)

3.55(0.76)

3.32 (0.67)

3.31(0.89)

3.38 (0.74)

1.18 n.s.

Self-assessment 3.05 (0.83)

3.10 (0.68)

2.76 (0.68)

2.92 (0.77)

2.90 (0.73)

3.37 *

Scale: 1 = describes well … 5 = does not describe well.n.s = non significant, p< .05 = *, p< .01 = ** p< .001 = ***A = Art & Humanities and Behavioural SciencesB = Teacher EducationC = Technology and ScienceD = Agriculture and Forestry

26

Table 2. The gender, age and tutorial guidance explaining forethought in learning

Forethought of Learn-ing

Explanatory variables: zero-order correlations to Forethought in learning factors

Factor Gender Age Tutorial guidance MotivationExpectation of Success .07 .13* .13* .45***Performance Anxiety .05 -.07 .00 -.24***Intrinsic Motivation .15* .09 .09 .41***Utility Value .02 .06 .09 .50***Self-Efficacy -.07 .08 -.16** .11

Table 3. The gender, age and tutorial guidance explaining the Learning Strategies.

Learning Strategies Explanatory variables: zero-order correlations to Learning Strategies

Factor Gender Age Tutorial guidance MotivationTime Management .05 -.07 .18** .28***Self-Management .11 .07 .14* .29***Persistency 11 .01 .17** .40***Selp-Seeking 10 -.08 .15* .09

Table 4. The gender, age and tutorial guidance explaining the use of Learning Skills.

Learning Skills Explanatory variables: zero-order correlations to Learning Skills

Factor Gender Age Tutorial guidance MotivationRehearsal .08 .17*** .00 .20***Critical Thinking .04 .15* .12 .10Finding Essential Points

.16* .08 .16* .22***

Connecting New and Old Information .19** .14* .20** .33***Keywords and Ad-vance Organizers .32** .14* .19** .24***Application of Theor-ies

.08 .08 .21** .23***

Self- Assessment .11 .20** .15* .26***

27

Appendix 2 The IQ Learn tests in the IQ Learn tool (http://iqform.edu.helsinki.fi)

1. Forethought of learning, 2. Strategies in learning 3. Learning skills

1. The test of Forethought of Learning

EXPECTATIONS OF SUCCESSI trust that I can learn even the most difficult theoretical issues and perform well in my studies.I am certain that I shall succeed well in my studies.I know that I will learn well the topics taught in the university courses.I believe that I will achieve excellent grades.

PERFORMANCE ANXIETYIn performance situations I am preoccupied by possible failure and its consequences.I am very anxious in exams.Noticing that an exam includes tasks I cannot answer affects (disturbs) my concentration on the other tasks.A stressful situation significantly decreases my performance.

MEANING OF STUDIESIf I can choose the assignments or literature, I choose the ones from which I can learn new things, even though I may not then get the best grade.I am very interested in my major subject and the new knowledge related to it.I get satisfaction when I have a chance to study some issues in-depth.In my studies gaining new understandings is intrinsically rewarding to me.In my opinion, university studies are always worthwhile.I believe studying at university will benefit my future.I am certain that a university degree creates possibilities to succeed in life.I believe that my studies in the university will benefit me later.

SELF-EFFICACY AND SELF-CONFIDENCEI will learn the issues, which are required by the university, if I only work hard enough.In my studies, gaining new understandings is intrinsically rewarding to me.I can learn even the most difficult topics, if I only do my best.I know I can achieve the goals that are set for me.

2. The test of Strategies in Learning TIME MANAGEMENTEven in a tough situation I can stick to the schedule I have made for myself.I stick to a certain timetable when I'm studying.I use the time that I have reserved for studying efficiently.I always stick to the study schedule that I have made.

SELF-MANAGEMENTI try to accommodate my own style of studying so that it would match with the requirements of each course.

28

Before a study assignment, I often go through its different steps in my mind.I set learning goals to be able to direct my studies.After a study assignment I often think about how I did and how I could improve my performance.

PERSISTENCYI often feel so lazy or bored studying course literature that I quit before finishing.I often give up when I'm studying difficult issues and focus on the easier ones.I have no difficulties in motivating myself to complete the study tasks even if they are not particu-larly interesting to me.I work really hard to do well in my studies, even if I don't like all the tasks or the material I am reading.

HELP-SEEKING STRATEGIESI seek help from my fellow students if I have difficulties in understanding something.Even if I have difficulties in my studies, I try to cope on my own, without help from others.I strive to cooperate with my fellow students when doing assignments.I often discuss with other students experiences related to learning.

3. The test of Learning Skills REHEARSALWhen studying I often revise things.To master the things to be learnt I repeatedly return to the things I learnt earlier.I read the texts several times to learn effectively.

CRITICAL THINKINGWhen some kind of theory or conclusion about the phenomenon studied is presented in the course, I try to find further arguments to support it.I almost always evaluate the reliability of the information I have read about or heard.I often ask questions about what I have heard or read so that I can be certain about the accuracy of the facts.

FINDING ESSENTIAL POINTSWhen reading literature, I first try to have an overview of the whole subject matter and then decide what I will focus on.When taking notes, I make a clear distinction between the more and the less important issues.When I'm studying the literature related to my studies, I try to distinguish the most important things from the less important ones.

CONNECTING NEW AND OLD KNOWLWDGEWhen I read the literature related to my studies, I combine information that I have read from differ-ent kinds of sources (for example notes, textbooks, conversations, and working experience).I make good use of my earlier knowledge/experience in my studies.I try to relate new information to things I have learnt earlier.

KEYWORDS AND ADVANCED ORGANIZERSI study and memorize thoroughly the key concepts which will help me remember the broader issues.Before reading a new text in depth, I first run through it and study how it is outlined.When I'm reading literature, I make notes about the most important things.

29

APPLICATION OF THEORIESWhen studying, I ask myself questions and consider the relation between theory and practice.I often develop my own conclusions or "theories" based on the things I have learned in the courses.I try to deepen what I am learning by looking for examples and applications.

SELF-ASSESSMENTTo make sure I understand deeply the subject matter of lecture series, I ask questions, for example, and participate in the discussion.I often analyze my learning experiences.I reflect on things thoroughly and think through what I have really learned.

30

Appendix 3 The IQ Team tests in the IQ Team tool

1. Group Roles 2. Together or Alone ~ Social Interdependence3. Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Processes

1. Group Roles

REJECTIONIf someone disagrees with me, I feel hurt and rejected.I am offended when others disagree with me.When others disagree, it means that they dislike me.

DOMINANCEWhen I disagree with other group members, I try to get them to change their opinions.In group work I try to overpower others with my facts and reasoning. When there are different opinions in the group, I try to convince others that I am right.

ENCOURAGINGI support members so that they would participate in group work.I encourage members to work hard to achieve the group goals.I facilitate members of the group to communicate with each other.

CONFORMINGThe members do not have to persuade me for very long to take the group´s opinion as my own. I am easily reconciled with the common opinion of the group. I conform to the opinion of the group, even if I have to change my own (opinion).

SHARING KNOW HOWI am open and candid with my entire group.I share my information and opinions to promote the success of all members and the group as a whole.I offer my resources to help the group.

AVOIDANCEWhen others disagree with me, I generally keep my ideas and opinions to myself.I do not express my ideas and opinions because I am afraid of others´ reactions.I keep my ideas, feelings, and reactions to myself during the group discussion.

2. Together or Alone

INDIVIDUALISTICEven though I am a member of a group, I want to work a lot on my own.I like to work by myself.I would rather work alone than work together with others.

COMPETITIVEI like to see who is the best in my group. I often notice that I compete with others (for something).

31

For me, it is important to do better than others.

COOPERATIVEIt is good for my learning if I work in a group.I am more productive if I work with others.I like to cooperate.

3. Group Processes and Knowledge Creating Processes

ATMOSPHEREThere was a positive atmosphere in the group.I felt free to express my ideas in group conversations. There was a mutual reliance in the group.

GOAL ORIENTATION AND COMMITMENTThere was a shared view of the object of the activity.The objectives of the team were agreed upon together in the beginning. The members of the team were committed to mutual activities.

INNOVATION AND CREATIVITYThe feedback given by group members generated new ideas.Innovations were typical for group activities.New ideas were produced in the group.

THE BENEFITS OF DOING TOGETHERWhen I described my ideas to others I understood my thoughts clearer.Views presented by other members helped me to broaden my own views.I learned better in a group than I would have learned by myself.

THE UTILIZATION OF DIFFERENCESConflicts brought up interesting discussions.New points of view were generated regarding different and even contradictory views.The group was able to make use of its members’ different talents.

THE ROLE OF THE TUTORThe tutor created an atmosphere that promoted learning.The tutor made the group take responsibility for their work.The tutor gave enough support and encouragement.

32