Accepted Manuscript

The influences of self-regulated learning support and prior knowledge on improving

learning performance

Tzu-Chi Yang, Meng Chang Chen, Sherry Y. Chen

PII: S0360-1315(18)30168-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.025
Reference: CAE 3389

To appear in: Computers & Education

Received Date: 29 May 2017

Revised Date: 25 June 2018
Accepted Date: 27 June 2018

Please cite this article as: Yang T.-C., Chen M.C. & Chen S.Y., The influences of self-regulated learning
support and prior knowledge on improving learning performance, Computers & Education (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.025.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The influences of self-regulated learning support and prior knowledge on
improving learning performance

Tzu-Chi Yang
Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, 128, Academia Road, Section 2,
Nankang, Taipei 115, Taiwan
E-mail: tcyang.academic@gmail.com

PT
Meng Chang Chen
Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, 128, Academia Road, Section 2,
Nankang, Taipei 115, Taiwan

RI
E-mail: mcc@iis.sinica.edu.tw

Sherry Y. Chen*

SC
Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, 300,
Jung-da Rd., JhongLi 320, Taiwan
E-mail: sherry@cl.ncu.edu.tw

U
*Corresponding author
AN
Abstract
M

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is helpful to students. On the other hand, prior

knowledge has great effects on students’ self-regulation and learning performance. To
D

this end, this study aimed to examine how high prior knowledge students (HPKs) and
low prior knowledge students (LPKs) behaved differently when interacting with a
TE

SRL environment. To achieve this aim, we proposed a self-regulated learning support

system (SRLSS) for a mathematical course. The results showed that the gap of
learning performance between the HPKs and LPKs was removed after a long-term
EP

learning process. Moreover, the LPKs and HPKs behaved similarly in the forethought
and self-reflection phases but some behavior differences were found in the
C

performance phase, where the LPKs relied on the notes and sought support the
dashboard and quiz records while the HPKs did not demonstrated such a tendency.
AC

Our results’ theoretical and methodological implications and possible applications for
further research are also discussed.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
High and low prior knowledge students used different SRL strategies.
Prior knowledge has effects on students’ SRL behaviors in the performance
phase.
The SRL support system was helpful to remove the gap of learning performance
caused by prior knowledge.

PT
Keywords: Evaluation of CAL systems; Interactive Learning Environments;
Teaching/learning strategies

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The Influences of self-regulated learning support and prior knowledge

on improving learning performance

Abstract

PT
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is helpful to students. On the other hand, prior knowledge has great

effects on students’ self-regulation and learning performance. To this end, this study aimed to

RI
examine how high prior knowledge students (HPKs) and low prior knowledge students (LPKs)

SC
behaved differently when interacting with a SRL environment. To achieve this aim, we proposed a

self-regulated learning support system (SRLSS) for a mathematical course. The results showed that

U
the gap of learning performance between the HPKs and LPKs was removed after a long-term
AN
learning process. Moreover, the LPKs and HPKs behaved similarly in the forethought and self-

reflection phases but some behavior differences were found in the performance phase, where the
M

LPKs relied on the notes and sought support the dashboard and quiz records while the HPKs did not
D

demonstrated such a tendency. Our results’ theoretical and methodological implications and possible
TE

applications for further research are also discussed.

EP

1. Introduction
C

Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to a scenario, where students are active and responsible for their
AC

own process (Zimmerman, 2008) and are able to be self-aware, knowledgeable and to decide an

approach to learning (Corno, 1986; Zimmerman, 1990). In past decades, a growing body of research

indicated that the SRL greatly affected students’ learning performance and academic achievement

(Wang, 2011). Specifically, strong SRL skills also predict high self-efficiency and satisfaction,

which can result in better learning outcomes (Artino, 2008). Researchers indicated that students with

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
strong SRL skills were more likely to be successful either in classrooms (Pintrich, 2000; Bellhäuser,

Lösch, Winter, & Schmitz, 2016) or online-learning environments (Broadbent, 2017).

In other words, the SRL has positive effects on student learning (Fisher, & Ford, 1998). As

suggested by Zimmerman (2000) and Zeidner, Boekarts and Pintrich (2000), students with the SRL

are expected that they (1) can improve their abilities to learning through selecting and using

PT
metacognitive and motivational strategies; (2) can proactively select, structure and even create a

RI
learning environment that is advantageous to themselves; (3) can play a critical role in choosing the

form and amount of instruction they need. However, doing the aforementioned SRL activities well

SC
is not a simple process because there is a need to rely on prior knowledge (Moos & Azevedo, 2008).

This is due to the fact that prior knowledge can affect students’ motivation and learning

U
approaches (Winters, Greene, & Costich, 2008). As shown in Greene, Moos, Azevedo, & Winters,
AN
(2008), high prior knowledge students (HPKs) could demonstrate more self-reflective and
M

monitoring behaviors than lower prior knowledge students (LPKs). Additionally, Bernacki, Byrnes,

& Cromley (2012) indicated that HPKs could usually use a more active learning approach while
D

LPKs passively followed instruction. Subsequently, Song, Kalet and Plass (2016) found that HPKs
TE

usually showed better learning performance than LPKs. These studies suggested that there is a strong

link between the SRL performance and prior knowledge.

EP

Such a link raises an issue that the SRL may not be very beneficial to LPKs. For example,
C

Winters, Greene and Costich (2008) found that LPKs had limited improvement and less tended to
AC

engage in planning and monitoring learning activities while HPKs might demonstrate better

improvement and high engagement in a SRL context. This might be because HPKs had stronger

metacognitive skills (e.g., self-aware, planning, monitoring, self-communication). More specifically,

higher self-regulated learning performance could be predicted by stronger metacognitive skills

(Dunlap, 2005). In other words, metacognitive skills could facilitate student learning in the SRL

context (Winne, 1995; Lehmann, Hähnlein, & Ifenthaler, 2014), where students were requested to set

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
goals, plan learning strategies, self-monitoring, and evaluate their strategies. On the other hand,

metacognitive skills were considered as critical skills for planning and selecting learning strategies,

assessing the effectiveness of learning strategies, and changing learning behaviors and strategies

when necessary. Accordingly, metacognitive skills provided proficiencies that the SRL needed so

there is a close link between the SRL and metacognitive skills.

PT
However, LPKs lack such metacognitive skills (Schunk, 2005; Liu, Andre, & Greenbowe,

RI
2008). This might be the reason why researchers attempted to investigate how to help LPKs to

improve their learning performance as well as SRL skills by providing additional support and

SC
training for LPKs (Kappa, 2001; Cleary, & Zimmerman, 2004; Spruce, & Bol, 2015). For example,

Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, & Cromley (2008) proposed an extended SRL support framework,

U
where agents/tutors were applied to facilitate students to monitor their learning status and seek extra
AN
help. Their results addressed that the learning performance of the LPKs could be significantly
M

enhanced and they demonstrated more advanced learning skills in the SRL context. Recently, results

from other studies also suggested that external support was helpful for improving the learning
D

performance of the LPKs in SRL contexts (e.g., Lehmann, Hähnlein, & Ifenthaler, 2014).
TE

However, these studies focused on specific or single support for SRL and lack

comprehensive understandings of how students’ behaviors were affected by the SRL (Taub, Azevedo,
EP

Bouchet, & Khosravifar, 2014; Trevors, Duffy, & Azevedo, 2014). Accordingly, there is a need to
C

trace and analyze students’ learning behaviors (e.g., Roll, Baker, Aleven, & Koedinger, 2014), which
AC

can not only provide behavioral evidence that reflects the influences of the SRL on student learning,

but also offers researchers a deep insight of the effects of the SRL (Biswas, Jeong, Kinnebrew,

Sulcer, & Roscoe, 2010; Bernacki, Byrnes, & Cromley, 2012).

In this vein, the aims of this study are two-fold. One is to propose a SRL environment to

support students. Among various topics, the SRL environment proposed in this study focused on

mathematical learning. Mathematical problem solving relies on regulating the selection of various

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
forms of knowledge (Zimmerman, 1989). For example, to solve a mathematical question, student

need to recall what they have learn, to select related solutions (e.g., definition, formula), and to use

the solutions correctly. To achieve the aforementioned activities, student need to aware their

learning status, to deal with their weaknesses, or to change their learning strategies. Such a process

corresponds to the core theme of the SRL. In other words, SRL skill might greatly affect learning

PT
performance in mathematic learning (Fuchs, 2003; Kramarski, & Gutman, 2006). Hence,

RI
mathematics was considered as the subject topic of the SRL environment developed in this study.

The other aim is to identify the effects of the SRL on student learning from a prior knowledge

SC
perspective, including learning performance, learning behaviors and learning perceptions. To

correspond to these two aims, the research questions of this study are:

1.
U
whether the proposed SRL environment is helpful to improve students’ learning
AN
performance?
M

2. whether LPKs and the HPKs behave differently in the proposed SRL environment?

3. If so, why LPKs and the HPKs behave differently?

D

To find the answers to these research questions, we examine the influences of prior
TE

knowledge on SRL across the three phases identified by Zimmerman (2000). By doing so, our study

can not only reveal the importance of understanding the effects of prior knowledge on SRL, but also
EP

provide guidance on how to offer adequate support for HPKs and LPKs in SRL environments.
C
AC

2. System design

Various tools have been applied to provide additional support in existing SRL environments,

including test/quiz (e.g., Ekholm, Zumbrunn, & Conklin, 2015), note-taking (Kauffman, 2004) and

feedback (Sung, Liao, Chang, Chen, & Chang, 2016). However, such SRL environments mainly

provided a single tool. As suggested by some researchers (Biswas, Jeong, Kinnebrew, Sulcer, &

Roscoe, 2010; Clark, 2012), providing learners with multiple tools can engage them during the SRL

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
process. To this end, this study proposed a self-regulated learning support system (SRLSS), which

integrated various tools to facilitate students to learn mathematics during the SRL process.

The design rationale of the SRLSS was based on the Cleary and Zimmerman’s SRL cycle

(2004), where learning behaviors were divided into three phase: forethought phase, performance

phase and self-reflection phase. To correspond to these three phases, the SRLSS consisted of three

PT
modules, i.e., forethought module, performance module, self-reflection module, each of which

RI
included various tools that support students to develop SRL skills. The details of each module are

described as follows (Fig. 1).

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP

Fig. 1. The framework of SRLSS

AC

2.1. Forethought module (FM)

In the forethought phase, students analyze their tasks, set goals and plan strategies to accomplish

their goals (Zimmerman, 2002). Thus, the FM (Fig. 2) provides students with tools, which can

facilitate them to set goals, manage time and plan strategies. Furthermore, each student had a

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
database, which recorded how they achieved these activities so that they could check their current

status or do some modifications. The details are described below.

● To set goals: Tools were provided to facilitate students in externalizing their goals.

Moreover, the expected scores of examinations and the anticipated correctness rate of

PT
quizzes were automatically presented so that students could be motivated to achieve such

RI
goals.

● To manage time: There were also tools, which could facilitate students in managing their

SC
time, including time spent on studying, taking quiz and reviewing learning materials.

● To plan strategies: Tools that could facilitate students in planning their strategies were also

U
available. Further to their own strategies, some strategies suggested by teachers were also
AN
included so that they could be guided to create strategies for themselves.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 2. An example of goal setting and time management tool

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2. Performance module (PM)

In general, self-monitoring and self-control were major strategies that student used during the

performance phase (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). Thus, students needed to implement learning

strategies and to correspond their performance to their goals to determine progress in this phase. To

PT
help students achieve their goals effectively, various online quizzes were provided (Fig. 3). Such

RI
quizzes included a standardized quiz, which covered the fixed scope of the subject content, i.e., the

weekly quiz and summarized quiz, and a customized quiz, which allowed students to choose the

SC
scope based on their own needs, i.e., unit quiz and personal quiz. The details are listed below.

● Weekly quiz: To cover an ongoing course progress for each week.

● Unit quiz: To focus on a single unit.

U
AN
● Personal quiz: To allow students to take a quiz based on their own needs
M

● Summarized quiz: To cover all information that they have learnt.

D

In addition to the online quizzes, the SRLSS provided the following tools based on
TE

recommendations made by Tsai, Lin and Yuan (2001).

● To review learning portfolio: Tools were provided to facilitate students in reviewing their
EP

learning portfolios, such as quiz history and related topics, highlighted questions, correct and
C

incorrect answers to questions. Student could monitor the performance and identify their
AC

weaknesses by reviewing their quiz portfolios.

● Personal note: Students were allowed to make personal notes anytime. Moreover, they could

add questions, solutions and comments to their own personal notes when taking the quizzes

and reviewing quiz results so that students could review their questions by browsing the

personal notes.

● To seek help: Text-based or video-based solutions were provided for students. The text-based

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
solution presents detailed solutions while the video-based solution provides step-by-step

guidance and teachers’ explanations for the solution. By doing so, student could deal with

their problems or improve their understandings by choosing a suitable solution based on their

preferences.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Fig. 3. An example of quiz result

C EP

2.3. Self-reflection module (SRM)

AC

During the self-reflection phase, students reflected and evaluated how they achieved goals according

to their performance. Students assessed their successes or failures, adjusted their self-efficacy and

reflect themselves whether they had accomplished their goals so that they could adjust their learning

strategies or goals for next steps. To facilitate the aforementioned reflection and evaluation, the SRM

provided three tools, i.e., Dashboard, self-reflection tools, self-assessment tools.

● Dashboard: The dashboard provided various information related to each student’s learning

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
status (Fig. 4). Specifically, the history of a student’s activities on the SRLSS was analyzed and

visualized in the dashboard, where student could see rich information, such as the correctness

rate of taking the quizzes and the average correctness rate of other classmates, performance on

each topic, the reports of how they used the SRLSS. Moreover, some suggestions were also

provided to prompt them to improve their performance.

PT
● Self-reflection Tools: There were tools (Fig. 5), which presented the learning goals and strategies

RI
planned by the students so that they could aware their performance and compared with expected

performance.

SC
● Self-assessment Tools: Tools were provided to encourage students to assess and evaluate

themselves, including satisfaction, attribution, adaptations, etc. Typical questions were “how

U
satisfied are you with your performance until now”, “what is distracted your study” and “what do
AN
you need to do to improve your performance on your next steps”.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 4. An example of the dashboard

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
Fig. 5. An example of prompt personal goals and self-assessment tool.
AN
M

In brief, the SRLSS is theoretically grounded within existing research in the area of SRL. To

have a deep understanding of the influences of the SRLSS on student learning, an experiment was
D

conducted to answer our research questions described in Section 1. The following section describes
TE

the details of our experimental design, including participants, procedures and measures used in the

experiment.
C EP
AC

3. Experimental design

3.1. Participants

The participants of this study were 60 students, who studied in a high school in north Taiwan. All of

the students were taught by the same instructor who had taught them for at least one year. Prior to

conducting the experiment, they had no experience in using such a SRL support system.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Pre-Test

The pre-test was used to identify participants’ prior knowledge of the basic mathematics in high

schools (K9 to K10), including the understandings of the subject content of a specific concept and

the processes and procedures related to the concept. For instance, student not only need to describe

PT
the definition of De Morgan’s laws, but also they were requested to use the laws to proof some

RI
equations. The pre-test consisted of five multiple-choice-question, five semi-structured question, and

five calculation or proof questions. Table 1 gives an example of these three types of questions. The

SC
perfect score of the pre-test was 100.

Table 1
U
AN
An example of pre-test.
Multiple-choice-question Given A, B, C sets, A' is the complementary set of A. Please select all
correct statements: (1) A∪B=B ⇒ A⊂B (2)A⊂B ⇒ A-B=∅ (3) A⊂C
M

and B⊂C ⇒ (A∪B)⊂C (4) A⊂B ⇒A'⊂B' (5) (A⊂C) ⊂(B∩C) ⇒ A⊂B.

Semi-structured question What are the De Morgan's laws?

D

Calculation or proof questions Given A={1,2,3}, B={2,3,4}, and U={1,2,3,4,5}. Assume that A and B
are subsets of a universe U. Proof that (1) (A∩B)' =A'∩B' (2)
TE

(A∪B)'=A'∪B'
EP

3.2.2 Formative Tests

There were four formative tests, two of which covered specific topics based on their course progress.
C

The other two tests were the post-test and delayed test, which were used to check students’ learning
AC

performance during the learning process (Guskey, 1980). The post-test was used to assess the

learning performance after they interacted with the SRLSS while the delayed test was used to

measure the long-term persistence of the influences of learning with such a SRL environment. Both

the post-test and the delayed test covered all relevant topics of the teaching unit and were

administered as paper-and-pencil tests with a perfect score of 100.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.2.3. Questionnaire

In order to further investigate students’ perceptions qualitatively, a questionnaire was administered to

each student at the end of the learning process. The design rationale of this questionnaire was to

examine (a) whether the students agreed that the SRLSS could help them learn the mathematical

course and (b) how the students reacted to the SRLSS. Accordingly, the participants were requested

PT
to answer the following questions

RI
(A) Do you think the SRLSS was beneficial to you, in terms of learning the mathematics course?

If so, please give three sentences to describe your experience. If not, please also give your

SC
reasons.

(B) Does the SRLSS provide you with sufficient tools for improving your learning performance?

U
(C) Please depict three tools that were the most helpful for you and explain why such tools were
AN
helpful,
M

(D) Please give your suggestions for improving the next version of the SRLSS.
D

3.3. Procedure
TE

The overall procedure of this study is described in Fig. 6. In the first stage, students received face-to-

face instruction for four weeks. Furthermore, students needed to take the pre-test to identify their
EP

prior knowledge. The participants whose pre-test scores were lower than the average, were assigned
C

to a low prior knowledge group (LPK). Otherwise, the participants, whose pre-test scores were
AC

higher than the average, were allocated to a high prior knowledge group (HPK). In other words, the

participants were divided into two groups based on their scores from a pre-test.

In the second stage, the students were then asked to complete weekly assignments and

quizzes on the SRLSS after each lecture was delivered. In other words, they would generally interact

with the SRLSS at least once each week. Meanwhile, how students interacted with the SRLSS was

recorded in a database so that their learning behaviors could be analyzed. During the learning

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
process, they were free to access resources (e.g., note, solution, other tools) provided by the SRLSS.

Additionally, they needed to take the formative tests every two weeks and they were also

administered with the post-test. In the end, they needed to fill out the questionnaire so that their

perceptions could be identified. After three weeks, they were requested to take the delayed test so

that the non-immediate influences of new learning intervention could be discovered.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 6. The procedure of the experiment

C
AC

3.4. Data analysis

The independent variable of this study was the levels of prior knowledge that students possessed. In

order to get a deep understanding of the SRLSS, we collected comprehensive information so three

dependent variables were included, i.e., learning performance, learning behaviors and learning

perceptions toward the SRLSS. Regarding learning performance, the scores from formative tests,

post-test, delayed test were applied to identify if there were statistically significant differences

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
between HPKs and LPKs. Furthermore, a significance level of p < 0.05 was adopted for the study.

Regarding learning behaviors, the lag sequential analysis approach (LSA) (Bakeman & Gottman

1997), which is an approach that examines whether particular sequences of behavior occur more or

less frequently than what would be expected, was applied to identify learning behavior of HPKs and

LPKs. In addition, qualitative data from students’ responses to the questionnaire were used to

PT
identify their perceptions, which were applied to illuminate the findings from learning performance

RI
and learning behavior.

SC
4. Results

4.1. Learning performance

U
AN
The result (Table 2) showed that the LPKs obtained lower scores than the HPKs in formative

test 1, formative test 2 and the post-test. This result is reasonable because prior knowledge has
M

positive effects on learning performance (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999). However, no significant

difference was found for the delayed test scores. A difference between the post-test and the delayed
D

test lied within the fact that the former took place immediately after students interacted with the
TE

SRLSS whereas the latter was held long after the SRLSS was administered. Thus, this finding

suggested that the LPKs could still benefit from the SRLSS though they might need longer time.
EP

Furthermore, the paired t-test was applied to examine score differences between each test
C

(Table 3). Regarding the HPKs, there were significant differences between the scores of formative
AC

test 1, formative test 2 and the post-test and the score of the pre-test while no significant difference

existed between the delayed test score and pre-test score. Regarding the LPKs, there was a

significant difference between the post-test score and the pre-test score and between the delayed test

score and pre-test score while no significant differences were found between the remaining test

scores (i.e. formative test 1 and formative test 2) and the pre-test score. The results showed that the

learning performance of the LPKs was significantly improved on post-test and delayed test, when

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
compare with the pre-test. In other words, the SRLSS could enhance the LPKs performance and

remove the gap caused by prior knowledge (Kapa, 2001; Mitchell, Chen, & Macredie, 2005) from a

long-term perspective.

Table 2
The t-test result of the learning performance of the two groups.

PT
Group N Mean S.D. p

Pre-test LPK 31 33.19 18.79 .000***

RI
HPK 29 74.31 20.06

Formative test 1 LPK 31 39.35 20.76 .004**

SC
HPK 29 57.21 25.22

Formative test 2 LPK 31 39.03 22.64 .016*

U
HPK 29 53.04 20383
AN
Post-test LPK 31 51.68 24.92 .027*

HPK 29 64.38 17.46

M

Delayed test LPK 31 60.45 18.84 .061

HPK 29 69.66 18.34

D

* p＜.05 ** p＜.01 *** p＜.001

TE

Table 3
The paired t-test result of the LPKs’ learning performance.
EP

Mean S.D. p
C

Formative test 1 - Pre-test LPK 6.16 20.84 .110

HPK -17.10 29.90 .005*

AC

Formative test 2 - Pre-test LPK 5.84 24.19 .189

HPK -22.93 24.79 .000*

Post-test - Pre-test LPK 18.49 18.81 .000*

HPK -9.93 20.68 .015*

Delayed test - Pre-test LPK 27.26 20.85 .000*

HPK -4.65 18.06 .176

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4.2. Students’ behaviors on the SRLSS

To analyze the behaviors demonstrated by students, we firstly coded students’ behaviors and

calculated the obtained frequencies of each code; after doing so, the LSA was used to uncover their

learning behaviors. The individual behaviors of the participants were coded using the coding scheme,

which included 19 codes related to the three phases of the SRL model (Table 4). Thereby, the

PT
frequency of each code was presented in Fig. 7.

RI
Table 4
The code schema for general behaviors.

SC
Behavior Codes Description

Performance phase

U
Login I To log in the SRLSS

Take a weekly quiz W To take a quiz related to current lecture

AN
Take a unit quiz U To take a quiz covered a topic

Take a personal quiz S To take a quiz which covered topics what they chosen
M

Take a summarized quiz M To take a quiz that includes every topic they learnt.
D

To show dashboard D To show the overview of learning status

To show the latest quiz result R To click to show the outcome of the latest quiz
TE

To show previous quiz outcome C To select to show an outcome of the completed quizzes
EP

To show text solution A To click the button to show the answers to the questions

V To click the button to show the feedback corresponded to the

To show video solution
test
C

To add a note N Add a question item to personal notes

AC

To use the notes P To open or manage personal notes

Forethought and Self-reflection phase

Goal setting G To set or modify goals

Time management T To plan or modify planned time to reach the goal

Strategic planning SP To plan learning strategies to reach the goal

To evaluate time management sT To evaluate the performance of time planning

To evaluate implementing sS To evaluate the performance of performing strategy

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

strategies

To record reflections sR To recode reflections

To evaluate performance for goals sE To evaluate the performance on completing goals

4.3. behavior frequency analysis

PT
In order to have an overview of learning behaviors of HPKs and LPKs, the frequency of each

behavior obtained was calculated so that the distribution of behaviors of these two groups could be

RI
uncovered (Fig 7). For example, the LPKs took the weekly quiz (W) 821 times while the HPKs took

SC
it 269 times based on the frequencies of obtained codes (Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 7, code A (open

text solution) has the highest frequencies for both groups. This finding suggested that both groups

U
were most concerned with the text solutions.
AN
However, the LPKs differed from the HPKs in behaviors with the second and third high

frequencies. Regarding the second-high frequencies, the behavior for the LPKs was to take the
M

weekly quiz (W) while that for the HPKs was to watch the video solutions (V). Regarding the third
D

high frequencies, the behavior for the LPKs was to watch the video solutions (V) while that for the
TE

HPKs was to plan learning strategies (SP). This finding implied that the LPKs paid attention to the

quiz while the HPKs emphasized on their own learning strategies. Such a difference may be
EP

reasonable because the LPKs usually rely on resources provided by teachers (Liu, Andre, &

Greenbowe, 2008) while the HPKs usually develop their own learning strategies to accomplish their
C

learning goals (Shen, & Chen, 2006). Accordingly, there is a need to investigate how the LPKs and
AC

HPKs behaved differently in the SRLSS. To this end, we conduct the LSA for their learning

behaviors, of which the details are described in the following sections.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig. 7. The frequencies of obtained codes.

SC
4.4. Lag Sequential analysis

U
According to the rationale of the LSA, participants’ behaviors were coded in the
AN
chronological order of their occurrences. For example, after logging into the SRLSS (I), a student

takes a weekly quiz (W), then the student clicks the button to show the dashboard for his/her learning
M

status (D), and take a unit quiz (U) then add a note (N); this series of behaviors was thus coded as I

W D U N. Based on this rationale, the adjusted residuals tables of behavior sequence for the LPKs
D

and HPKs were conducted (Table 5 and Table 6). The first column presents the starting behaviors
TE

and the first row describes the behaviors that immediately occur after the starting behaviors finish.
EP

The numbers represent the z-score of a column behavior occurred immediately after a row behavior

ended. The behavior sequence would be recognized as a significant behavior sequence if the z-score
C

of the sequence was greater than +1.96.

AC

For instance, we can find that the z-score of row I, column W were 16.06 and 10.44 for LPKs

and HPKs, respectively. Thus, an argument can be made that both LPKs and HPKs tended to take

the weekly quiz after logging the system (I→W). The behavior analyses were divided into two parts.

One part was related to behavior shown in the performance phase (Table 5 and Table 6) while the

other part was concerned with behavior demonstrated in the forethought and self-reflection phases

(Table 7 and Table 8). We used such an approach because students’ behaviors in the forethought

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
phase were significantly inter-correlated with those in the self-reflection phase while behaviors

demonstrated in the performance phase might be the outcomes of students’ forethought and self-

reflection processes (Cleary, & Zimmerman, 2001; Goetz, Preckel, Pekrun, & Hall, 2007).

Table 5

PT
The result of the sequential analysis of behavior demonstrated by the LPKs.
Given/
I W U S M A V D R C N P
Target

RI
I 0.94 16.06* 7.9* -1.38 6.85* -14.29 -10.32 8.06* 6.5* -5.09 -7.24 -3.07

W -1.02 5.44* 6.5* 0.74 -1.42 0.31 -6.17 -0.38 3.37* -4.68 2.12* -5.53

SC
U 4.82* -2.8 6.76* -2.05 -0.53 1.07 -3.91 -1.31 -0.89 -3.1 4.14* -3.81

S 1.69 -1.82 -2.49 11.52* -1.39 2.16* -1.41 -2 2.21* -1.58 0.16 -1.74

M -1.57 -2.66 0.83 -1.39 3.98*

U -0.69 -0.02 -2.73 1.45 -2.06 10. 1* -1.34

AN
D 4.86* 12* 2.67* 3.18* 6.51* -11.33 -8.43 6.07* 2.73* -4.16 -5.91 -2.85

R -0.74 0.05 -2.57 0.62 -1.41 0.34 0.57 -1.19 2.22* 11.12* -3.74 -1.99
M

C -1.59 -4.24 -2.79 -0.25 -2.06 0.09 -2.3 -3.07 -1.19 36.25* -3 -1.76

A -3.08 -9.33 -6.73 -0.42 -3.79 20.62* 5.24* -1.53 -5.29 -1.87 -1.52 -6.72
D

V 1.67 -7.47 -4.89 -2.12 -3.07 -3.58 25.02* -0.47 -5.49 -1.56 -4.62 -4.35
TE

N -3.5 -7.1 -4.6 -2.24 -2.56 6.88* 0.19 -3.34 -2.42 -3.33 21.34* 0.23

P -1.57 -2.93 -3.53 -1.74 0.06 -7.26 -5.25 -4.34 -0.67 -2.59 -3.68 53.45*
C EP
AC

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 6
The result of the sequential analysis of behavior demonstrated by the HPKs.
Given/
I W U S M A V D R C N P
Target

I 0.99 10.44* 12.54* 6.3* 0.48 -12.43 -7.6 5.97* 6.74* -4.03 -5.55 -3.9

W -0.39 6.17* 9.38* -1.63 3.77* -3.61 -3.69 -2.88 5.85* -2.93 -0.68 -4.15

U 5.93* -1.79 -0.93 -3.75 1.24 4.19* -3.28 0.28 0.95 -3.21 1.6 -4.01

PT
S 1.19 -2.24 -3.18 4.14* -1.11 -0.83 -1.43 3.8* 0.91 -2.04 5.52* -2.67

M 2.9* 2.27* -0.17 -1.11 6.63* -1.85 -1.7 -1.42 0.59 -0.97 0.47 -0.48

RI
A -2.63 -5.59 -6.53 -4.28 -2.32 20.65* 7.76* -3.22 -6.48 -3 -4.96 -8.09

18.36*

SC
V -1.85 -2.24 -4.65 -1.43 -1.05 -0.05 -2.63 -2.98 -3.52 -1.8 -4.68

D 6.38* -0.96 5.07* 8.76* 1.64 -8.6 -5.63 9.22* 1.27 -2.84 -4.11 -2.95

R -1.21 3.85* -0.91 0.55 -1.19 -2.72 -1.98 -1.05 4.45* 12.87* -3.13 -2.98

C -1.26 -1.23 -2.89 0.59 0.11

U
-0.39 -3.22 -1.79 -2.68 28.62* -2.79 -2.92
AN
N -4.01 -3.96 -3.78 -2.5 -1.25 0.73 -1.08 -2.72 -3.13 -2.4 25.21* 1.97*

P -2.62 -3.64 -3.77 -3 -1.3 -8.26 -5.15 -2.69 -2.04 -2.92 -0.75 41.01*
M

Table 7
D

The result of the sequential analysis of Forethought and Self-reflection behavior demonstrated by the LPKs.
Given/ Target G T S sE sT sS sR
TE

G 17.04* -1.66 -7.67 -1.99 -3.79 -4.93 -5.21

21.36*
EP

T -6.08 -2.16 -3 -3.33 -4.17 -4.65

S -5.67 -5.59 22.89* -2.99 -4.17 -4.81 -5.62

C

sE -0.63 -3.8 -4.38 7.1* 11.49* -2.75 -1.63

AC

sT -4.03 -3.61 -4.17 -0.29 14.96* 9.29* -2.72

sS -4.93 -4.17 -4.81 8.95* -1.85 8.34* 6.27*

sR -5.21 -4.86 -5.62 -1.95 -3.05 7.13* 19.2*

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 8
The result of the sequential analysis of Forethought and Self-reflection behavior demonstrated by the HPKs.
Given/ Target G T S sE sT sS sR

G 17.16* -1.97 -8.01 0.45 -4.08 -5.07 -5.79

T -6.37 22.39* -2.72 -3.37 -3.67 -4.48 -4.92

S -6.08 -6.5 22.82* -2.95 -3.45 -5.16 -5.88

PT
sE 1.11 -3.65 -4.35 2.54* 12.72* -2.25 -2.53

sT -4.08 -3.67 -4.38 0.17 15.38* 9.9* -2.9

RI
sS -5.27 -4.48 -5.35 8.46* -1.89 10.54* 7.6*

SC
sR -5.61 -4.92 -5.88 -1.14 -2.9 6.17* 21.4*

U
4.5. Overall patterns in the three phases AN
In order to have a deep understanding of differences between the LPKs and HPKs, we used the LSA

to compare their significant behavior sequences, in terms of the three phases of the SRL model (i.e.,
M

Forethought phase, Performance Phase and Self-Reflection Phase). The results (Table 9) indicated

that there were no significant differences between LPKs and HPKs in the forethought and self-
D

reflection phases but significant behavior differences were found in the performance phase. A
TE

difference among these three phases lied within the fact that students needed to set their goals and to
EP

evaluate whether they reached the goals in the forethought and self-reflection phases but they were

requested to carry out their goals in the performance phase. In other words, students needed to take
C

actions in the performance phase, instead of creating some thoughts only. This might be the reason
AC

why no significant differences existed between LPKs and HPKs in the forethought and self-

reflection phases but there were significant differences in the performance phase. Accordingly, our

finding suggested that taking actions in the performance phase was associated with students’ prior

knowledge.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 9
Significant behaviors of LPKs and HPKs in the three phase.
Forethought phase (no significant difference between LPKs and HPKs)

● To focus on setting/modify goals, strategies and time management (G→G, T→T, S→S)
● To paid attention to evaluating time management after setting goals (G→sT)

PT
Performance Phase

Similar patterns

RI
● To follow instructions and tend to do comprehensive review (W→W, W→U, S→S, M→M)
● To view results to identify their weakness (W→R, R→R, R→C, C→C)
● To use the solutions to improve understandings (A→A, A→V, V→V)

SC
● To make notes to review and deal with learning weakness (N→N, N→P)
● To monitoring their learning status (D→U, D→S, D→D)

Different patterns

LPKs

U HPKs
AN
● To rely on notes (W/M/U→N, U→N→A) ● Less rely no notes (S→N, U→A)
● To tend to take a local approach ( U→I; U→U) ● To tend to take a global approach (M→I)
● To tend to do more to improve understandings ● No more significant behaviors
after checking learning status (D→W, D→M,
M

D→R, S→R)
D

Self-Reflection Phase (no significant difference between LPKs and HPKs)

TE

● To pay effort on self-evaluation (sT→sT, sS→sS, sE→sE, sR→sR)

● To particular focus on receding reflection and evaluating strategies (sS→sR, sR→sS)
● To develop an approach to evaluate themselves (sE→sT, sT→sS, sS→sR)
EP

4.6. Differences between LPKs and HPKs

C

● LPKs: Much to rely on notes (W/M/U→N, U→N→A) vs. HPKs: Less to rely no notes (S→N,
AC

U→A)

The result revealed that some differences existed between the HPKs and LPKs. The LPKs

preferred to make notes after taking the unit quiz (U→N), the weekly quiz (i.e., W→N) or the

summarized quiz (i.e., M→N). Conversely, the HPKs tended to make notes only after taking the

personal quiz. Additionally, the LPKs tended to make notes after taking the unit quiz and then

check the text solutions (U→N→A). In contrast, the HPKs did not need to take notes and they

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
tended to check the text solutions immediately after taking the unit quiz (i.e., U→A).

These findings suggested that the LPKs relied on notes in many contexts while the HPKs

need to take notes in few contexts. The responses from the questionnaire suggested that the

LPKs were keen to make notes because they thought that making notes could help them

improve the understandings of unfamiliar topics (e.g., “I can practice unfamiliar topics more

PT
times via making notes”) and identify and overcome their weaknesses (e.g., “The function of

RI
myNote facilitated me to collect what I do not understand and remind me how to deal with

them”). On the other hand, the HPKs had sufficient prior knowledge so they did not need to rely

SC
on notes too much. In brief, making notes was essential to the LPKs while taking notes was not

so critical to the HPKs.

●
U
LPKs: To take a local approach ( U→I; U→U) vs. HPKs: To take a global approach (M→I)
AN
The U→I for the LPKs indicated that they usually loginned the SRLSS after taking the unit
M

quiz. Such a result suggested that taking the unit quiz may be the last behavior of the LPKs

before they started to have another new session. On the other hand, the U→U suggested that
D

they repeated to take the unit quizzes. Thus, they might login the SRLSS for taking the unit
TE

quizzes only. Briefly, the LPKs were keen to take the unit quizzes when interacting with the

SRLSS. The unit quizzes focused on specific aspects so this finding suggested that the LPKs
EP

tended to take a local approach

C

Unlike the LPKs, the M→I for the HPKs indicated that taking the summarized quiz was the
AC

last behavior of the HPKs during the process of interacting with the SRLSS. The summarized

quiz covered a variety of aspects so this finding implied that the HPKs had a tendency to take a

global approach. Such a finding was also reflected in their responses to the questionnaire. More

specifically, they attempted to take a quiz that covered more questions to confirm their

understandings. Typical responses include “It would be better if the quiz covered more difficult

questions”, “I would like to have more extensive and complex questions”. This may be able to

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
explain why the HPKs quitted the SRLSS after taking the summarized quizzes. The

aforementioned findings echoed those of Chen, Fan and Macredie (2006), which indicated that

a global approach was appreciated by the HPKs while a local approach was favored by the

LPKs.

● LPKs: To tend to check learning status with the dashboard and quiz records ( D→W, D→M,

PT
D→R, S→R) vs. HPKs: no more significant behaviors

RI
Unlike the HPKs, the LPKs showed the patterns of the D→W and D→M, which indicated that

they usually took the weekly quiz or summarized quiz after checking the dashboard. In other

SC
words, the dashboard might motivate the LPKs to do more practices with the weekly quiz and

summarized quiz. This finding echoed that of Smits, Boon, Sluijsmans, & Van Gog (2008),

U
which addressed that the LPKs could be motivated by reminding their learning status.
AN
Therefore, they were keen to take various quizzes after checking dashboard. As addressed by
M

the LPKs “I can see my weakness via checking the dashboard. Accordingly, I can do more

practice for a single or multiple topics”, “The dashboard alerts me my weaknesses, which are
D

helpful for me to know how to make improvement”.

TE

However, using dashboard only was not enough for the LPKs because they could get an

overview only from dashboard. Thus, they also tended to view the quiz records, which provided
EP

them with detailed situations after viewing the dashboard (D→R). Moreover, the quiz records
C

were also helpful to them after taking taking the personal quiz (S→R). This might be due to the
AC

fact that the LPKs thought that the personal quiz was a useful tool for checking their learning

status. For example, a LPK indicated that “I can check if there were any unfamiliar topics again

via taking the personal quiz and checking the answer and solution to help me understand the

concept”.

The aforementioned findings suggested that the dashboard and quiz records were useful for

LPKs because these two tools could help them identify their learning status and make

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
improvement. However, such behavior sequences were not demonstrated by the HPKs. In other

words, the LPKs developed a significant cycle on self-monitoring and self-controlling during

the learning process. This result might also be able to explain why the learning performance of

the LPKs could be improved.

PT
5. Discussions

RI
The results of this study revealed that prior knowledge had great effects on students’ learning

performance in a SRL context. Accordingly, we analyzed their learning behaviors during the

SC
learning process based on Zimmerman’s SRL model. Our results showed that no significant behavior

differences between the LPKs and the HPKs in the forethought phase and the self-reflection phase.

U
Nevertheless, the LPKs and HPKs demonstrated some different learning behaviors in the
AN
performance phase. That is to say, prior knowledge might greatly affect how student developed and
M

performed their learning strategies in the SRL context. The findings of this study are summarized in

Fig. 8 and are discussed in subsections below.

D
TE
C EP
AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 8. The summary of the findings of this study

5.1. The SRL can minimize differences between the LPKs and HPKs

The result of this study revealed that the SRLSS was particularly helpful for the LPKs in improving

their learning performance. This might be because that the SRLSS provided students with various

types of support and feedback, which could help the LPKs control their learning process (Nicol, &

PT
Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006; Zamary, Rawson, & Dunlosky, 2016). Thus, the learning performance of the

RI
LPKs was considerably improved whereas that of the HPKs was not greatly changed. Such findings

echoed those found in Amadieu, Van Gog, Paas, Tricot, & Mariné (2009) and Wang, Han, Zhan, Xu,

SC
Liu, & Ren (2015).

U
5.2. The LPKs and the HPKs behave similarly in the forethought and self-reflection phases
AN
The results from the LSA indicated that the LPKs and HPKs behaved similarly in the forethought

phase and the self-reflection phase. The former was concerned with goals settings and strategies
M

planning while the latter was related to the evaluation and adjustment of strategies. In other words,
D

prior knowledge affected neither goals settings and strategies planning nor evaluation and the
TE

adjustment of strategies. This might be due to the fact that setting goals relied on self-motivation

beliefs and the awareness of current status while planning the strategies depended on the sense of
EP

self-efficacy. Such results are consistent with those of Moos & Azevedo (2008) and Taub, Azevedo,

Bouchet, & Khosravifar (2014), which showed that prior knowledge did not significantly affect
C

students’ goals setting and strategies planning in the forethought phase.

AC

On the other hand, the evaluation and adjustment of strategies relied on students’ self-

reflection skills, rather than prior knowledge that they possessed. In other words, prior knowledge

has nothing to do with the evaluation and the adjustment of strategies (Bergee, 1993). Thus, the

LPKs and HPKs showed similar behavior in the self-reflection phase.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5.3. Prior knowledge affect student learning in the performance phase

Based on the results from LSA, the LPKs and HPKs demonstrated some similarities and differences

in the performance phase. Regarding the similarities, both of them paid attention on monitoring their

learning status. This might be because understanding their own learning status could help them

PT
identify their weaknesses so that they could know where needed to be improved.

RI
Regarding the differences, the LPKs used multiple mechanisms to deal with their weaknesses

while the HPKs mainly focused on viewing the text solutions only. In other words, the LPKs and

SC
HPKs might develop different strategies to make improvement. In particular, the LPKs demonstrated

many learning behaviors after checking their learning status. These findings were coherent with

U
those of Kitsantas (2013), which suggested that prior knowledge might affect student’s learning
AN
behaviors (Shen, & Chen, 2006; Cifarelli, Goodson-Espy, & Chae, 2010). This might be the reason
M

why the LPKs and the HPKs demonstrated different learning behaviors in this phase.
D

6. Conclusions
TE

This study investigates “whether the proposed SRL environment is useful for students to improve

learning performance”, “how LPKs and the HPKs behaved differently in the SRL environment?” and
EP

“why LPKs and the HPKs behaved differently”. To answer these three research questions, the
C

learning performance, sequential learning behaviors and qualitative data from the questionnaires
AC

were considered. Regarding learning performance, the results from the delayed test showed that no

significant difference exist between the LPKs and HPKs. In other words, the LPKs’ performance

was improved after a long-term learning process. Accordingly, these findings implied that the SRL

was helpful to remove the gap of learning performance caused by prior knowledge.

Regarding learning behaviors, each event was coded and classified based on the three phases

of the SRL model, i.e., Forethought phase, Performance Phase and Self-Reflection Phase. The

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
results of this study suggested that no significant difference between the HPKs and LPKs existed in

the forethought phase and self-reflection phase. However, prior knowledge had great effects on

students’ behaviors in the performance phase, where the LPKs and HPKs demonstrated different

learning behaviors. In summary, the LPKs, who did not possess sufficient prior knowledge, tended to

take a local approach with the unit quiz, while the HPKs, who had enough prior knowledge, had a

PT
tendency to take a global approach with the summarized quiz. In addition, the lack of prior

RI
knowledge might also make the LPKs more rely on the note while the HPKs did not demonstrate

such a pattern. Furthermore, the LPKs tended to check their learning status with the dashboard and

SC
quiz records and subsequently attempted to make some improvement with various quizzes. This

might be due to the fact that the LPKs lacked self-monitoring and self-controlling strategies so they

U
needed to seek external support provided by the dashboard and quiz records and then did some
AN
practices with several quizzes. Conversely, the HPKs possessed such strategies so they did not need
M

to obtain additional support and did some practice. Such findings also echoed results from previous

studies, which indicated that external support might be beneficial to the LPKs (e.g., Winters, Greene,
D

& Costich, 2008; Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, & Cromley, 2008).
TE

The contribution of this study includes three aspects: theory, methodology, and applications.

In terms of theory, this study deepens the understandings of the impacts of the SRL approaches on
EP

student learning by providing empirical evidence. The findings of this study indicated that providing
C

students with the SRL support was helpful for LPKs to develop an adaptive learning strategy, with
AC

which they tended to master what they had learnt so their learning performance could be improved.

However, the sample size was not big in this study. Further work needs to be undertaken with a

larger sample to provide additional evidence.

With regard to methodology, this study analyzed the students’ learning behavior with the

LSA approach and qualitative data. Such approaches are useful to get a further understanding of

students’ learning behaviors. Nevertheless, no approaches are fully perfect so it is necessary to

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
conduct further work to analyze students’ learning behaviors with other approaches, e.g., a data

mining approach. It would be interesting to see whether similar results could be obtained by using

such an approach. As far as the application is concerned, this study illustrates how to implement a

SRL that can accommodate students’ individual differences. However, this study focused on prior

knowledge only and other individual differences (e.g., genders, cognitive styles) might also have

PT
great effects. Thus, such individual differences should be addressed in our future works. The findings

RI
from such future works can be integrated with those from this present work. By doing so, we can

develop personalized SRL that can satisfy the needs and preferences of each individual.

SC
References

U
Amadieu, F., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and
AN
concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction,
M

19(5), 376-386.

Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: Predicting

D

satisfaction with online training. Journal of computer assisted learning, 24(3), 260-270.
TE

Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-

facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?.
EP

Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45-72.

C

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential

AC

analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bellhäuser, H., Lösch, T., Winter, C., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Applying a web-based training to foster

self-regulated learning-Effects of an intervention for large numbers of participants. The Internet

and Higher Education, 31, 87-100.

Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury

performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 19-27.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Bernacki, M. L., Byrnes, J. P., & Cromley, J. G. (2012). The effects of achievement goals and self-

regulated learning behaviors on reading comprehension in technology-enhanced learning

environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 148-161.

Bernacki, M. L., Byrnes, J. P., & Cromley, J. G. (2012). The effects of achievement goals and self-

regulated learning behaviors on reading comprehension in technology-enhanced learning

PT
environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 148-161.

RI
Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J. S., Sulcer, B., & ROSCOE, R. (2010). Measuring self-

regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research

SC
and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(02), 123-152.

Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner's self-regulated learning strategies and

U
academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24-32.
AN
Cifarelli, V., Goodson-Espy, T., & Chae, J. L. (2010). Associations of students’ beliefs with self-
M

regulated problem solving in college algebra. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(2), 204-232.

Chen, S. Y., Fan, J. P., & Macredie, R. D. (2006). Navigation in hypermedia learning systems:
D

experts vs. novices. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 251-266.

TE

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by

experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(2), 185-206.
EP

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self‐regulation empowerment program: A school‐based

C

program to enhance self‐regulated and self‐motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the
AC

Schools, 41(5), 537-550.

Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary

educational psychology, 11(4), 333-346.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and

outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of educational research,

69(2), 145-186.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares

students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65-83.

Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy

toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: writing feedback perceptions as a mediating

variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197-207.

PT
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two

RI
learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 397-420.

Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to

SC
the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 34(1), 18-29.

U
Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., Azevedo, R., & Winters, F. I. (2008). Exploring differences between
AN
gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia.
M

Computers & Education, 50(3), 1069-1083.

Goetz, T., Preckel, F., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2007). Emotional experiences during test taking:
D

Does cognitive ability make a difference?. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 3-16.
TE

Guskey, T. (1980). Mastery learning: Applying the theory. Theory into Practice, 19(2), 104-111.

Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized
EP

environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(3), 317-336.

C

Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self‐regulated learning be supported in mathematical
AC

E‐learning environments?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 24-33.

Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools

designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational

beliefs. Journal of educational computing research, 30(1-2), 139-161.

Kitsantas, A. (2013). Fostering college students' self-regulated learning with learning

technologies. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 235-252.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lehmann, T., Hähnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational

perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in human behavior, 32,

313-323.

Liu, H. C., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The impact of learner’s prior knowledge on their use

of chemistry computer simulations: A case study.Journal of Science Education and

PT
Technology, 17(5), 466-482.

RI
Mitchell, T. J., Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2005). Hypermedia learning and prior knowledge:

domain expertise vs. system expertise. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 53-64.

SC
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior

domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270-298.

U
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a
AN
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-
M

218.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.

D

Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA:
TE

Academic.

Roll, I., Baker, R. S. D., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2014). On the benefits of seeking (and
EP

avoiding) help in online problem-solving environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4),
C

537-560.
AC

Schunk, D.H. (2005) Self-regulated learning: the educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational

Psychologist, 40, 85–94.

Shen, B., & Chen, A. (2006). Examining the interrelations among knowledge, interests, and learning

strategies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,25(2), 182.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Smits, M. H., Boon, J., Sluijsmans, D. M., & Van Gog, T. (2008). Content and timing of feedback in

a web-based learning environment: effects on learning as a function of prior knowledge.

Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 183-193.

Song, H. S., Kalet, A. L., & Plass, J. L. (2016). Interplay of prior knowledge, self‐regulation and

motivation in complex multimedia learning environments.Journal of Computer Assisted

PT
Learning, 32(1), 31-50.

RI
Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated

learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(2), 245-277.

SC
Sung, Y. T., Liao, C. N., Chang, T. H., Chen, C. L., & Chang, K. E. (2016). The effect of online

summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-

U
based technique. Computers & Education, 95, 1-18.
AN
Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Bouchet, F., & Khosravifar, B. (2014). Can the use of cognitive and
M

metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies be predicted by learners’ levels of prior

knowledge in hypermedia-learning environments?. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 356-367.

D

Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor: interactions between
TE

an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational

Technology Research and Development,62(5), 507-528.

EP

Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Students' use of web‐based concept map testing and
C

strategies for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 72-84.

AC

Wang, D., Han, H., Zhan, Z., Xu, J., Liu, Q., & Ren, G. (2015). A problem solving oriented

intelligent tutoring system to improve students' acquisition of basic computer skills. Computers &

Education, 81, 102-112.

Wang, T. H. (2011). Developing Web-based assessment strategies for facilitating junior high school

students to perform self-regulated learning in an e-Learning environment. Computers &

Education, 57(2), 1801-1812

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 30(4),

173-187.

Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-

based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429-444.

Zamary, A., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the

PT
quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not

RI
help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 12-20.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:

SC
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of educational

Psychology, 82(1), 51.

U
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts,
AN
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA:
M

Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,

D

41(2), 64–70.
TE

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,

methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal,

EP

45(1), 166-183.
C

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Reliability and validity of Self-efficacy for Learning
AC

Form (SELF) scores of college students. Journal of Psychology, 215(3), 157-163.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
A self-regulated learning support system (SRLSS) was proposed.
The SRLSS could remove the gap between the High Prior Knowledge students
and Low Prior Knowledge students.
Prior knowledge affects students’ behavior in the performance phrase.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC