You are here:

Advice on Tool Use in Open Learning Environments
Article

, , Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 17, Number 1, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Research provides ample evidence that students rarely or often inadequately use instructional interventions in learning environments. This lack of use becomes especially problematic in open learning environments, where students have a large amount of control over tool use. In this contribution it is studied whether advice on the use of tools can help to increase the use of tools by students. This question was addressed in an experimental study with two experimental conditions and a control group. The first experimental group received random advice, the second experimental group received adapted advice and the control group received no advice. Results show that the advice alters the pattern of tool use, and that the students in the adapted advice condition are more inclined to follow up advice. Unexpectedly, these results are not moderated by students' conceptions about the functionality of the tools.

Citation

Clarebout, G. & Elen, J. (2008). Advice on Tool Use in Open Learning Environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 81-97. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 277-320.
  2. André, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 280-319.
  3. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide to improving thinking, learning and creativity. New York: W. H. Freeman, & Company.
  4. Carrier, C. A., Davidson, G. V., Williams, M. D., & Kalweit, C. M. (1986). Instructional options and encouragement effects in a microcomputer-delivered
  5. Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies with learner-controlled CALL. Calico Journal, 7(2), 25-47.
  6. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2004, June). STUWAWA: Studying tool use with and without agents. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Ed.), Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2004. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
  8. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2005b, August). Modality effect in open learning environments. Paper presented at the EARLI-conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.
  9. Clarebout, G., Sarfo, F. K., & Elen, J. (2004). Measuring instructional conceptions with the ICON-questionnaire (Internal report). Leuven, Belgium: Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology.
  10. Clark, R. E. (1990). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathematantics. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), European research in an international context. Learning and Instruction (Vol. 2.2, 12). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  11. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2006). The use of instructional interventions: Lean learning environments as a solution for a design problem. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 185-200). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  12. Friend, L. C., & Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current literature review. Educational Technology, 30(11), 47-49.
  13. Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151-179.
  14. Jackson, G. A. (1990). Evaluating learning technology. Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 294-311.
  16. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and illstructured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-91.
  17. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, (Ed.), Instructional design, theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
  20. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 6178.
  21. Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Education for Information, 14(2), 95-108.
  22. Lee, Y. B., & Lehman, J. D. (1993). Instructional cueing in hypermedia: A study with active and passive learners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(1), 25-37.
  23. Lowyck, J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2004). Instructional conceptions: A prospective analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 429-444.
  24. Luyten, L., Lowyck, J., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2001). Task perception as a mediating variable: A contribution to the validation of instructional knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 203-223.
  25. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
  27. Schnackenberg, H. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer-based instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 19-35.
  28. Snow, R. E. (1986). Individual differences and the design of instructional programs. American Psychologist, 27(1), 1029-1039.
  29. Snow, R. E. & Swanson, J. (1992). Instructional psychology: Aptitude, adaptation and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 583-626.
  30. Tacq, J. (1997). Multivariate analysis techniques in social science research. From problem to analysis. London: Sage.
  31. Vermunt, J. D. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. Naar procesgerichte instructie en zelfstandig denken [Learning styles and coaching learning processes in Higher Education]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  32. Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N.(1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257-280
  33. Williams, M. D. (1996). Steps towards cognitive achievements. Journal of Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 673-693.
  34. Winne, P. H. (1985). Steps towards cognitive achievements. Journal of Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 673-693.
  35. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes. Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 466-488.
  36. Young, M. F., & McNeese, M. D. (1995). A situational approach to problem solving. In P. Hancock, J. Flach, J. Caid, & K. Vincente (Eds.), Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems (Vol. 2, pp. 359-391). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References