Effects of A Social Regulation-Based Online Learning Framework On Students Learning Achievements and Behaviors in Mathematics

Computers & Education 160 (2021) 104031
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Effects of a social regulation-based online learning framework on

students’ learning achievements and behaviors in mathematics
Gwo-Jen Hwang a, Sheng-Yuan Wang b, Chiu-Lin Lai c, *
a
Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
b
Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
c
Department of Education, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Most university degrees often require students to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics, which
Applications in subject areas is the basic requirement in many fields, such as science, engineering, or technology. Mathematical
Interactive learning environments knowledge is so common as to be essential in higher education. Although mathematical skills are
Pedagogical issues
crucial to the success of study in many domains, a large number of students are not willing to
Teaching/learning strategies
Secondary education
study related courses. Anxiety and pressure triggered by previous failures in mathematic learning
are considered as the reason. The online learning environment provides students with opportu
nities to exchange opinions with others and facilitate their self-regulated learning. Scholars
believe that the learning performances of students can be enhanced if they make reference to
other students’ learning strategies during the study process. The practice of making references to
other students’ learning strategies and mutually monitoring each other during the study process is
called social regulation. The study efficiency of social regulation in learning mathematics will
need to be verified. This study has adopted a social regulation-based online learning approach for
assisting students in achieving learning goals with peers’ power. At the same time, this study
conducted an experiment with an experimental group and a control group. The social regulation-
based online learning approach was used by the experimental group while the conventional self-
regulated learning approach was used by the control group. According to the results, the social
regulation-based online learning approach enhances students’ learning achievements and
learning motivations in mathematics. Based on the results of the sequential pattern analysis for
investigating the online learning behaviors of the two groups of students, students who use the
social regulation-based online learning approach have more positive online learning behaviors,
such as reading the supplementary materials regarding the wrongly answered questions and
revising the notes. On the contrary, students who use the conventional self-regulated learning
approach only pay attention to the results of tests and feedback provided by their teacher. They
seldom have behaviors of looking at the supplementary materials, adding or deleting notes. With
the above verification, the developed system of this study not only enhances students’ learning
performances, but also guides them to have more meaningful learning behaviors in mathematics.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gjhwang.academic@gmail.com (G.-J. Hwang), wjames0717@gmail.com (S.-Y. Wang), jolen761002@gmail.com (C.-L. Lai).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104031
Received 14 January 2020; Received in revised form 3 August 2020; Accepted 23 September 2020
Available online 5 October 2020
0360-1315/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers & Education 160 (2021) 104031
1. Introduction
In recent years, advanced technology has facilitated online learning as a newly emergent learning mode. Learners can access the
online learning environment to study anywhere through using the Internet and different online learning platforms without time
constraints. This learning mode allows greater flexibility in learning environments. Providing many online teaching materials or videos
for learners to watch is the common characteristic of different online learning platforms, which also combine the benefits of online
learning without time and place constraints. With the use of computers and the Internet, learners gain learning experiences during
study (Benson, 2002; Carliner, 2004; Conrad, 2002). Many kinds of research have shown that online learning materials and videos can
enrich the learning experiences of students as they feel as if they are having lessons in the classroom (Chen & Wu, 2015). Moreover,
online courses allow learners to have more time to understand class materials by repeatedly watching the courses (Brecht & Ogilby,
2008).
Regarding online learning environments, most are categorized into personalized learning environments, that is, students self-
manage their time concerning the learning paths given by the online learning platforms during their study (Dillahunt, Wang, &
Teasley, 2014; Lee, Yoon, & Lee, 2009). Although this kind of learning environment offers an open and self-directed learning envi
ronment, studies have revealed that there are some disadvantages of this type of online learning (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013).
Firstly, the drop-out rate is high. Although a number of students register for online learning courses, a large portion of them fail to
complete the courses (Diver & Martinez, 2015; Hew & Cheung, 2014). Secondly, it is difficult for students to gain learning suggestions
(Hew, 2016; Kizilcec, Pérez-Sanagustín, & Maldonado, 2017). The online learning environment provides numerous valuable re
sources, but students still have to use extra time to seek help from other learning platforms if they do not receive real-time learning
suggestions (Ashton & Davies, 2015). Many scholars have suggested improving online learning to overcome the previously mentioned
disadvantages. For instance, they suggest that online learning provide learning alerts to students and guide them to make progress with
their learning (Lu et al., 2018), with the aim of maintaining their online learning motivations, providing knowledge sharing with peers
or establishing automatic diagnosis mechanisms as well as giving instant feedback to solve learning problems (Gil, Virgili-Goma,
Garcia, & Mason, 2015; Tawfik et al., 2017).
Self-regulated learning is one of the essential learning strategies that supports students’ access to online learning (de Barba,
Kennedy, & Ainley, 2016; Leris, Sein-Echaluce, Hernandez, & Bueno, 2017). Self-regulation represents the meta-cognition, motiva
tions and active learning behaviors of learners during the study process (Zimmerman, 2000). Many studies have found that
self-regulated learners act as active learners while studying. It is because they set up task-oriented learning goals, take responsibility as
learners, and monitor their learning progress as well as maintaining their learning motivations (bib_Heikkilä_and_Lonka_2006Heikkilä
& Lonka, 2006; Schunk, 1994). Online learning activities have offered self-regulated guidance to students so as to prompt them to
engage in online learning according to plan. Hopefully, this can enhance their learning performance (Kizilcec, Perez-Sanagustin, &
Maldonado, 2017; Pardo, Han, & Ellis, 2017). However, we have to identify how to provide learning suggestions to students. Most
students may have a low level of self-regulated behaviors if they do not receive appropriate guidance during the study process
(McLaughlin et al., 2013). There is a high possibility that they cannot take part in online learning efficiently in this situation. In
addition to instructional videos, it is important to conduct learning activities in online mathematics courses using effective strategies to
encourage students to share their problem-solving skills, such as peer assessment or collaborative learning (Cakir, Zemel, & Stahl,
2009). Scholars have indicated that the method of the self-regulated mode and the sharing of learning strategies between peers during
learning activities is named social regulation (Su, Li, Hu, & Rose, 2018). Many studies have found the importance of social regulation in
the process of collaborative learning (Volet, Vauras, & Salonen, 2009). Meanwhile, the adoption of social regulation helps learners to
strategically regulate their individual learning, and to effectively learn online by referring to others’ learning strategies (Scogin,
Alexander, Gruenler, Mader, & Bartoszek, 2020; Stoeffler, Rosen, Bolsinova, & von Davier, 2020). However, the effects of social
regulation on learning are still unknown for students in online learning environments, especially in the subject of mathematics.
Mathematical knowledge has been regarded as a basic requirement for various fields (e.g., science and engineering), and students
generally make great efforts to apply mathematical knowledge to other domains (Roick & Ringeisen, 2018; Schommer-Aikins, Duell, &
Hutter, 2005). Regulated learning of mathematics is important for students; otherwise, less learning efficiency and low willingness to
learn will occur (Bannert & Mengelkamp, 2008). Therefore, it is important to cultivate students to share or regulate their learning
strategies during their individual learning.
Therefore, in this study, a social regulation-based online learning framework is proposed to cope with this problem. It is expected
that by referring to higher self-regulated students’ learning strategies, the lower self-regulated students will learn how to make and
achieve their own study plans, and hence improve their learning outcomes. In addition, it is imperative to understand and record
students’ behaviors in student-centered and problem-based learning (Yew & Yong, 2014). The learning behavior patterns of students
can be a reference for researchers and teachers to examine the factors affecting students’ learning outcomes as well as developing more
effective learning strategies (Hou, Chang, & Sung, 2008). Accordingly, the following research questions are investigated in this study:
(1). Are there any significant differences in the learning achievements of students who adopted a social regulation-based online
learning framework or a conventional self-regulated learning framework to perform the learning activities?
(2). Are there any significant differences in the attitude toward learning mathematics of students who adopted a social regulation-
based online learning framework or a conventional self-regulated learning framework to perform the learning activities?
(3). Are there any significant differences in the behavioral patterns of students who adopted a social regulation-based online
learning framework or a conventional self-regulated learning framework to learn and interact?
2
2. Literature review
2.1. Mathematics education
The mathematical achievements of secondary school students have long been a great concern for policymakers and scholars (Polya
& Conway, 2014). Many scholars believe the mathematical achievements of secondary school students are the key predictor of a
country’s long-term potential economics (Friedman, 2006; bib_Schommer_Aikins_et_al_2005Schommer-Aikins et al., 2005). In many
countries besides the United States, the international mathematical achievements are assessed by the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) (Thomson, Cresswell, & De Bertoli, 2003) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA], 2003). The results of these assessments are
always the headlines of local newspapers, making local people believe the mathematical and scientific performances of students are the
foundation of the future competitiveness of a country. Furthermore, mathematics is one of the important courses in higher education,
so many university degrees require students to have certain mathematical skills (Roick & Ringeisen, 2018; Tyson & Roksa, 2016),
especially in the fields of science, engineering or technology. It is well-known that mathematical skills are very important and
beneficial to students, but many students are still not willing to study mathematics-related courses due to their previous failures in
learning mathematics which generate pressure and anxiety (Chen, 2019; Nunez-Pena, Suarez-Pellicioni, & Bono, 2013).
Heinrich (2015) reported that the USA and the European government have set students a series of goals to achieve mathematical
proficiency, but schools and students cannot meet their targets. According to the London Mathematical Society (1995), the mathe
matical performances of Year 1 students have been reported below trend in the courses of mathematics, science, and engineering in
higher education due to a lack of the ability to correctly operate algebra equations to solve problems. HomeKay and Kletskin (2012)
indicated that students’ academic ability to perform Basic Algebra, Trigonometry, Exponent, and Logarithms has decreased in higher
education. Therefore, it is imperative to find a way to improve students’ mathematical performances.
Many researchers have tried their best to look for alternative methods for teaching mathematics, such as introducing the latest
tools, teaching methods, teaching models or teaching materials (Kim & Chang, 2010; Steffe & Wiegel, 1994). They hope that learners
can experience a more pleasant journey while learning mathematics. For example, many researchers have suggested using problem
posing as supplemental materials in teaching activities, with the aim of boosting students’ active involvement in mathematics learning
activities (Baxter, Woodward, & Olson, 2005). Research has found that engaging students in problem-posing activities could enhance
their higher order thinking (Whitin, 2004). Chang, Wu, Weng, and Sung (2012) developed a problem-posing system in a mathematics
course and showed that the system could enhance students’ problem-posing abilities, problem-solving ability and flow experience.
Gabriel and Gilberto (2007) integrated interactive and entertainment-oriented elements into a teaching set of interactive online
collaborative mathematics learning environments, including instant messaging, chat rooms and multiplayer mathematical games. The
result has revealed positive learning attitudes while students are learning mathematics in this kind of environment. (Lazakidou and
Retalis (2010)) established a set of computer-based collaborative learning systems for primary students, with the aim of examining the
problem-solving abilities when learners face mathematical challenges. Based on the results, the collaborative learning system enhances
learners’ problem-solving abilities and sharpens their problem-solving methods in mathematics over a short period of time. HomeKay
and Kletskin (2012) developed a problem-based podcast to provide instructional videos to help students identify complex mathe
matical or scientific problems. A majority of students who often listen to Podcasts believe that this is an effective learning tool, and that
it can enhance their learning performances in Calculus courses. The above examples indicate that technology-assisted learning styles
help students to learn mathematics in a better way. A large group of mathematical studies has been targeted specifically at primary
school students (Chen, 2019; Doganay & Bal, 2010), university students (Tieben, 2019) or groups of students with specific learning
disabilities (Gottfried & Kirksey, 2019), but they have seldom targeted secondary school students (ter Vrugte et al., 2015). Mathe
matics in secondary schools is either an extension of that in primary schools or is a foundation for what is taught in universities. If
students cannot demonstrate excellent performance in secondary school mathematics, their learning progress in mathematics in
university will be hindered due to their low learning motivations.
2.2. Online learning
Online learning means that learners use the Internet to study and gain learning experiences by using computers (Benson, 2002;
Carliner, 2004; Conrad, 2002). Through using websites to study, learners can conduct long-distance learning anywhere, despite the
time constraints. Timing and location will no longer be barriers between teachers and learners. This learning mode has either increased
the learning opportunities for learners or enhanced connectedness, flexibility, and interactions during learning activities (Hiltz &
Turoff, 2005).
In recent years, people with diverse backgrounds have invested in online learning due to its popularity, and they are keen to prove
the effects of online learning by analyzing different parameters. Wang (2010) developed an online learning approach to enhance the
learning effectiveness of students with the provision of online illustrations. Correct guidance is provided to assist students in solving
problems using a graduated prompt approach. Wang (2014) developed an assessment-based online learning approach to assist students
during the process of online learning. This two-tier diagnostic assessment assists students in clarifying and understanding the learning
concepts; what is more, it boosts their learning performances. According to bib_Zhang_et_al_2006aZhang, Zhou, Briggs, and Nuna
maker (2006a, 2006b), the interactive online video-based learning environment not only allows students to watch videos, but also
provides digital materials and notes. Students enjoy learning and thus have better performances in this learning environment. Merkt,
Weigand, Heier, and Schwan (2011) proposed a self-regulated online video-based learning environment that results in better learning
3
performance of students if the environment combines online videos with another learning strategy, such as self-regulation. From the
perspective of adult learners, Sariscsany and Pettigrew (1997) found that prospective teachers who have attended training can recall
more information in an interactive video-based learning environment compared to traditional instruction. Besides, the research
indicated that the interactive video-based learning approach has facilitated learners’ completion of complicated tasks while learning.
Despite numerous advantages for users to perform online learning, researchers have pointed out problems in the online learning
environment (Kop, 2011; Rowe, Osadnik, Pritchard, & Maloney, 2019). For instance, teachers cannot manage to grasp the learning
process of students due to the lack of face-to-face interactions (Chen, Hwang, & Chang, 2019). The intention and motivation of online
learning will be reduced if the online learning platform cannot provide instant feedback and guidance to students (Muuro, Wagacha,
Oboko, & Kihoro, 2014). On the other hand, self-discipline is one of the biggest challenges facing students in an online learning
environment (Lung-Guang, 2019). It is difficult for students who have plans for the self-directed online learning process to learn
continuously in the online learning environment. They are easily affected by other non-study media, and are less likely to gain learning
experiences in the online learning environment (Henderikx, Kreijns, Munoz, & Kalz, 2019). All these problems have to be solved with
effective learning strategies or guidance given by educators and researchers, with the aim of maintaining learners’ intentions regarding
online learning.
2.3. Self-regulated learning and social regulation
Self-regulated learning has gradually become an important issue in education in the recent 2 decades. Zimmerman (1989) defined
self-regulation as the learning process of learners starting from setting plans, setting goals, organization, self-monitoring to
self-evaluation. In the learning processes, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) explained how learners use strategies to meet their
targets and monitor their learning effectiveness after setting goals themselves. Pintrich (2000a, 2000b) and (Stone (2000)) described
self-regulation as the process for learners to complete learning tasks. Learners will set goals, use strategies, monitor themselves and
estimate the progress of achieving their goals to gain achievement during the learning process. Zimmerman (2008) further indicated
that self-regulation is a process for learners to plan, monitor and standardize their learning; that is, learners can enhance their mo
tivations and modify their learning thoughts through planning. Based on the above definitions, researchers consider self-regulation to
be a learning process for learners to actively set goals, plan learning content and set learning standards. With the aims of meeting
targets and standards, they will use learning strategies, monitor their learning progress, and modify their learning. All these elements
combined are named self-regulation.
Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (1996) suggested four recurring stages of self-regulation (Fig. 1), namely Self-evaluation, Goal
setting, Strategy adoption, and Monitoring. The objective of this recurring cycle is to assist students with “Self-observation” and
“Self-evaluation” in goal setting and strategy application. With this recurring mode, students engage in autonomous learning by
determining their learning methods and modifying their learning modes according to their learning performance (Zimmerman, 1995).
Cognition and meta-cognition play key roles in determining whether students can perform self-regulation (Azevedo, Johnson,
Chauncey, & Burkett, 2010; Azevedo & Hadwin, 2005). Several previous studies have reported that students with higher learning
motivation generally have better performances in setting learning objectives as well as monitoring and evaluating their own learning
status (Azevedo & Jacobson, 2008; Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, & Cromley, 2008; Bannert & Mengelkamp, 2008). In the
meantime, higher self-regulated learners can examine their learning fields through cognition activities. They also monitor their studies
and encourage themselves through meta-cognition activities.
Learners often find it difficult to regulate their learning when they are in a computational online learning environment as they can
be easily distracted (Azevedo & Hadwin, 2005). Therefore, many researchers have proposed promoting learners’ self-regulation with
the establishment of scaffolding to enhance their learning achievements and learning motivations (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Bannert
& Mengelkamp, 2008; Land & Greene, 2000). In this environment, learners must set their own learning goals and strategies to achieve
their goals (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2001). Research has found that students can have better understanding of the learning
content (Bergin, Reilly, & Traynor, 2005), have better results and learning motivations (bib_Kizilcec_et_al_2017Kizilcec et al., 2017) as
well better confidence in goal setting (Alexiou & Paraskeva, 2010) when they apply self-regulated learning strategies. For example,
Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) found that learners who applied self-regulation during the learning process had better and
more notable learning performances compared to other learners. From the research done by (Guzdial et al. (1996)), it was indicated
that self-regulated learning strategies definitely increase students’ learning willingness and learning performances. With regard to
mathematics learning, Delen, Liew, and Willson (2014) showed that students have superior learning performances with the installment
of a self-regulated video-based learning environment. The research results of Sun and Xie (2018) indicated that the learning
Fig. 1. Four recurring stages of self-regulation.
4
achievements and self-efficacy in mathematics can be increased with the introduction of self-regulated learning strategies into the
online calculus courses.
On the other hand, a considerable amount of research has found that students cannot receive instant feedback and suggestions for
self-regulation when they are in a computer-based learning environment, so it is difficult for them to set up clear learning goals, and
they cannot engage in the cognitive activities according to their goals (McCrudden & Schraw, 2007; Winne & Hadwin, 2010). Scholars
have previously proposed that the mode of social self-regulated learning helps students to set suitable learning goals, and to develop
and monitor their learning strategies. The performances of higher self-regulated learners have regulated the learning behaviors of
lower self-regulated learners. Lower self-regulated learners may have mimic effects which then influence their learning performances
according to the opinions of higher self-regulated learners. For instance, in the process of solving the STEM tasks based on Zheng, Xing,
and Zhu (2019), the authors found that the students had higher social self-regulated behaviors during the learning process. That is,
sharing their own learning and solving methods during activities will efficiently boost learning if they learn together. On the other
hand, Su et al. (2018) also examined students’ behaviors during online collaborative English reading activities, and found that students
with higher learning achievements showed more behaviors related to social regulation, evaluation and learning monitoring. These
studies showed that students have better performances with the assistance of social regulation during online learning or in online
collaborative learning environments.
This study therefore introduced a social regulation-based online learning framework. It used this system to provide higher learning
achievers’ self-regulated learning behaviors which can be watched by other learners. Learners can use this system as an introduction to
understand how learners with higher learning achievement set goals and adopt learning strategies. Through this process, they can
learn how to set possible targets and apply effective learning strategies.
3. The development of the social regulation-based online learning framework
In this study, a social regulation-based online learning framework was developed. In order to evaluate the effects of social regu
lation on students’ online self-regulated learning, this study referred to the methodology published in previous studies (Chen & Huang,
2014; Michailidis, Kapravelos, & Tsiatsos, 2018), that is, comparing subjects who have experienced different interventions. Therefore,
one group learned with the proposed learning framework, while the other learned with a similar learning framework but without social
regulation. The students’ learning achievement, learning attitudes as well as their learning behaviors were collected in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of social regulation in the study. The learning achievement referred to the students’ academic performance
in specific topics, while the learning attitude reflected the students’ overall affective reaction to the context. In addition, learning
behaviors referred to the students’ actual learning behaviors when using the learning system, which were automatically recorded by
the system. Those evaluations have frequently been used to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions ((Yang, Chang, Hwang,
& Zou, 2020); Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020).
Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach’s (1996) study suggested four recurring stages of self-regulation, and developed a social
regulation-based online learning framework. Fig. 2 is the system structure that shows four parts, including the courses and assessment
module, the self-regulated module, the social-regulated module, and cloud storage. The courses and assessment module, which has the
learning material database and assessment database, provides the functions of online note to students and assists them in completing
the online learning activities. The self-regulated module provides the goal-setting module, strategy adoption module, monitoring
module and evaluation module of self-regulated guidance. All of these learning modules will provide guidance of self-regulation to
students during the pre-, mid- and post-learning activities, and assist them in understanding their learning situation as well as
modifying their learning progress. All the activities were recorded if students set goals and strategies in the self-regulated module.
Their learning preferences and strategies during the learning process were also recorded by using cloud storage. The system of this
study provides not only personalized evaluation for reference, but also the source origin of the self-regulated module. During the
learning process, students learn the learning goals and processes from those with higher learning achievements and then share them
with others. When setting goals next time, it also encourages the students to make reference to the goal-setting suggestions, time
Fig. 2. Structure and environment of the social regulation-based online learning framework.
5
management suggestions and learning strategy suggestions from students with higher learning achievements provided by the
social-regulated module.
Before the learning activities, in addition to the learning materials, the teacher prepared and uploaded the test items and learning
tasks for drills and practice. After that, the students started to learn on the system, including setting their own learning goals, taking
assessments, and watching the supplementary materials. After accessing the homepage of the system, the functions of the system are at
the top of the screen, including weekly tests, my progress, goal setting, tests reviews, unit tests, learning suggestions and my notes.
When students start entering the courses, teachers ask them to set learning goals and choose learning strategies. When they select the
function of “Goal Setting” at the top, the system displays the three options of Goal Setting, Time Management, and Learning Strategies.
With regard to Goal Setting, learners can set their own goals according to their performances in mid-term examinations, in-class
tests, and percentage of correctness in the exercises provided in the system. The system will consider the percentage of correctness
in the exercises and automatically give feedback to students when they use the percentage of correctness in the exercises as the
reference to set goals. Besides, they can manually insert their goals (Fig. 3). The self-regulated strategy supports students to set learning
goals and learning strategies in the learning environment. During the learning process, the system will record learners’ learning
process, which enables them to monitor their learning progress. Therefore, learners can adjust their learning goals and learning
strategies at any time.
Regarding Time Management, the system assists learners in managing their time, including the hours of daily study, the hours of
weekly study, the frequency of weekly tests, weekly usage of the system, the hours of reading teaching materials and the hours of
watching teaching videos, etc. In terms of Learning Strategies, learners choose their learning strategies based on the planning of
personalized learning preferences. Moreover, they can add more goals and planning (Fig. 4).
After finishing goal setting and strategy setting, learners can set their learning process based on their learning status. They can also
either select Weekly Tests or Unit Tests to set the scope of the tests according to the current teaching progress (Fig. 5). During the drills
and practice process, the students could determine how to spend their time on particular content or tasks. The weekly tests were
conducted to help the individual students evaluate their own learning performances each week. The students could determine the
number of test items they would answer. After taking the tests, the students examined their learning status and determined which part
they needed to practice more. Apart from that, the system provides summative tests to assist students in self-examining their learning
status of all of the chapters.
The “Test-Review” function was developed based on the suggestion of (Tsai, Lin, & Yuan (2002)). After completing the exercises,
learners can use the Test Review function to examine their status of self-learning, including the correct answers to each answered
question, their answers and the percentage of correctness in previous tests. Learners can identify their unfamiliar topics when using all
these methods. If they want to further watch the supplementary materials, they can either choose the “See the Answer” function at the
right side of each question to look for the text-based supplementary materials, or choose the “See the Video” function at the right side to
watch the video-based supplementary materials of each question. During the learning and the process of testing, if they find some
important or unfamiliar concepts, they can use the Add to Collect function at the right side to collect those concepts into the My Notes
function (Fig. 6). Later on, learners can select the My Notes function to watch the collected concepts or revise the highlights.
Fig. 3. Functions of the “Goal Setting” in the system.
6
Fig. 4. The system Time Management and Learning Strategies functions.
Fig. 5. Weekly Tests and Unit Tests in the system.
The My Progress function provides learners with the overall percentage correctness and the unit percentage of correctness in all
unit tests (Fig. 7), allowing them to spend more time in the unfamiliar units. Besides, the systematic report of My Progress informs
learners of their status related to the exercises, including the frequency of finishing tests and the learning hours spent accessing the
system, permitting them to monitor their learning strategies and re-examine the completeness of their original goals before the end of
each week, as well as modifying their goals and learning strategies. Moreover, the system will consider learners’ learning status to
provide suggestions, with the aim of improving their performance (Fig. 8).
The social regulation-based online learning framework is able to provide higher achievers’ learning experience for every student,
including goal setting, learning strategies, learning behaviors, learning habits and exercise strategies. This study determined the higher
achieving students based on their overall ratios of giving correct answers to all of the unit tests. Accordingly, by referring to previous
studies (Allan, 1991), the students ranked in the highest 33% were selected as the high achievers. In addition, the system summarized
the high achievers’ behaviors and strategies as a reference for all of the students. When selecting “Learning Suggestions” in the system,
7
Fig. 6. Screen of “tests review".
Fig. 7. Content of “my progress".
learners can immediately find out how students with higher learning achievements set their learning goals, conduct time management
and choose learning strategies (Fig. 9). In addition, the system automatically updates the ranking and the suggestion if the
correct-answer ratio of a student changes.
4. Research design
4.1. Participants
The target participants of this experiment are senior high Grade 1 students from one high school in northern Taiwan. A total of 62
students from two classes participated in the study, and their average ages were 15 and 16 years old. One class was randomly chosen as
the experimental group, and the other class was the control group. The experimental group with 32 students used the social regulation-
based online learning framework to study. The other class with 30 students was the control group, which used the conventional self-
regulated learning framework to study. The two classes were taught by the same teacher, and were scheduled to learn the same
8
Fig. 8. Learning suggestions given by the “Social Regulated Learning Guidance” in the system.
Fig. 9. Suggestions of learning activities given by the “Social Regulated Learning Guidance” in the system.
learning content and complete the same tasks in the same learning time. The participating students were all taught by the same teacher
who had taught mathematics for 17 years. The teaching course in this study covers the chapters of permutation and combination in
senior high Grade 1 mathematics.
4.2. Experimental procedure
Fig. 10 illustrates the procedures of the experiment in this study. First, it had to be consistent with the school curriculum and
conduct 2-week teaching related to the basic knowledge of permutation and combination (a total of 4 classes, 200 min). In week 3, the
9
Fig. 10. Procedures of the experiment.
pre-test and the pre-questionnaire of learning attitudes (90 min) were administered. The pre-questionnaire of learning attitudes in
cludes the three dimensions of confidence in learning mathematics, learning motivation in mathematics, and mathematics anxiety.
Starting from week 4, the two groups of students conducted 3 weeks of online self-regulated learning activities. During the study,
learners could freely browse the resources provided by the system (e.g., weekly tests, unit tests, and summary tests, videos, the note
adding tool). In the weekly learning process, students not only had to complete the online courses, but also had to do the paper-based
drill and practice (a total of 3 times).
During the process of the activities, students from the experimental group used the social regulated-based online learning
framework to study. In this learning environment, the self-regulated learning strategy required the students to set learning goals and
learning strategies in the learning environment. During the learning process, the system recorded the learners’ learning details,
allowing them to evaluate their achievement of the learning goals and the effectiveness of the learning strategies, and modify the goals
and strategies accordingly. When taking the course, the students could use the functions such as the tests database, the teaching
materials database and online notes, to study and conduct tests. Besides, the experimental group used the social regulated-based
learning strategy which provided a reference to all learners regarding learning goals, learning strategies from students with higher
learning achievements as well as how to proceed with their goals. It provided a guidance system for learners to set possible goals and
choose learning strategies.
On the contrary, students from the control group used the conventional self-regulated learning framework; otherwise, their
learning was the same as that of the experimental group. Students from the control group could use the functions such as the tests
database, the teaching materials database and online notes, to study and conduct tests. However, they did not have social regulated
learning guidance.
After completing 3 weeks of course study, all learners took the post-test and filled in the post-questionnaire of learning attitudes
(90 min). The next week, all learners took the delayed post-test to understand the continuity of their acquired knowledge.
4.3. Measurements
This study adopted measuring tools such as a learning achievements and learning attitude questionnaire. Besides, it modified the
coding scheme to analyze the students’ behavioral learning patterns.
The pre-test used in this study aimed to examine whether the two groups of students who participated in the experiment had
equivalent basic knowledge of permutation and combination. It has a total score of 100, including five single-choice questions and 15
fill-in-the-blank questions. The three drill and practices had to be done after completing the topics from week 4 to week 6 respectively.
The content of the tests was based on the weekly progress and covered specific topics. In addition, the content of the drill and practices
was different from that of any of the tests the students took on the system. The other two tests were the post-test that was taken after
completing the course, and the delayed post-test that was taken 1 week after the course completion. The post-test, which was taken
after completing the course, aimed to examine students’ learning efficiency in the whole learning process. The delayed post-test, which
was taken 1 week after the course completion, aimed to examine the continuous impacts on the course knowledge of students in the
online self-regulated learning environment (Guskey, 1980). The questions in the post-test and delayed post-test differed, but both
covered all the content of the experimental course. The aim of the five tests was to examine the students’ understanding abilities when
they studied the knowledge of permutation and combination in the learning environment. Each test consisted of four single-choice
questions and 16 fill-in-the-blank questions, with a full score of 100. The questions set in the five post-tests were designed with the
help of two teachers who had taught mathematics for over 10 years.
The questionnaire of learning attitude used in mathematics learning is amended from the learning attitude questionnaire of
Fennema and Sherman (1976). It has 36 questions and uses a 5-point Likert scale, which ranges from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally
agree); the questionnaire items are listed in the Appendix. The Cronbach’s alpha value of this questionnaire is 0.92, indicating that it is
a highly reliable questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of three dimensions, namely confidence in learning mathematics, learning
motivations in mathematics, and mathematics anxiety. Each dimension has 12 items, for instance, “I believe I have the ability to learn
mathematics” in confidence in learning mathematics, “If I haven’t finished the questions during the mathematics lesson, I will still
think of it after the lesson” in learning motivations in mathematics, and “I almost don’t feel panic in the mathematics examinations” in
10
mathematics anxiety. The Cronbach’s alpha values of each dimension are 0.91, 0.92 and 0.92, respectively. All of them show good
reliability. The questionnaire of learning attitude was administered before and after the teaching activities. This questionnaire can
identify the differences in students’ attitudes before and after the learning activities. With the help of the statistically verified analysis,
differences in the learning attitudes of the experimental group and control group students can be seen.
Apart from the previous points, this study categorized some possible learning behaviors into test conducting, notes organization
and content review, with the aim of finding out whether the students’ learning behaviors changed due to the use of different learning
frameworks under the learning procedure of online self-regulation. Test conducting collected the learners’ behaviors such as choosing
to conduct weekly tests, self-selecting the scope of tests, conducting unit tests, or conducting summary tests in the self-regulated
learning environment. Notes organization collected the learners’ behaviors such as opening the notes to watch the content, adding
notes during learning, or deleting notes from personalized notes. Content review collected the learners’ behaviors such as reading the
text-based supplementary materials during revision, reading the status of tests, watching the video-based supplementary materials,
browsing the content of the most recent test or seeing the content of previous tests. The coding scheme of learning behaviors can be
seen in Table 1.
5. Results
5.1. Learning achievement
This study first investigated two learning modes, the social regulation-based online learning framework and the conventional self-
regulated learning framework, to find out whether there are significant differences in the learning achievements when students use
them to study mathematics courses. Assessments were conducted to examine the efficiency in the learning modes, including three drill
and practices, a post-test after completing the whole course, and a delayed post-test 1 week after the course completion. This study
used one-way ANCOVA to do the analysis, with the pre-test as the covariance, the learning modes as the independent variables, and
learning achievements as the dependent variables. One-way ANCOVA was based on the results of learning achievements.
In addition, the homogeneity of regression slopes was confirmed, indicating that it was appropriate to apply the analysis of
covariance (F = 0.09, p > 0.05). Therefore, the one-way ANCOVA was conducted. The results of the ANCOVA analysis are shown in
Table 2. According to Table 2, there is no significant difference between the social regulation-based online learning framework and the
conventional self-regulated learning framework when comparing drill and practice 1 and drill and practice 2. Drill and practice 1 was
done after week 4, while drill and practice 2 was done after week 5.
However, the mean score of drill and practice 3, which was done after week 6, is 38.75 while the adjusted mean score is 38.31. The
mean score of the conventional self-regulated learning framework is 23.87, while the adjusted score is 24.33. The mean score and the
adjusted mean score of the formative assessment 3 from the two groups show a significant difference (F = 12.60, p < 0.01).
On the other hand, the mean score of the post-test is 46.56, and its adjusted mean score is 45.95. The mean score of the conventional
self-regulated learning framework is 35.93, and its adjusted score is 36.54. The learning achievements of the two groups showed a
significant difference (F = 5.12, p < 0.05), indicating significant differences in the scores between the drill and practice 3 and post-test
when the students used the different learning modes after the course had entered week 6. Therefore, the social regulation-based online
learning framework significantly promoted students’ learning achievements in mathematics tests related to the knowledge of per
mutation and combination. Moreover, according to Table 2, the values of the effect size of the formative assessment and post-test are
0.93 and 0.60 respectively, indicating that the social regulation-based online learning framework has a good effect on boosting stu
dents’ learning achievements.
According to Table 2, the mean score of the delayed post-test, which was administered 1 week after the completion of the course, is
56.56 and its adjusted mean score is 56.13. The mean score of the conventional self-regulated learning framework is 47.83 and its
adjusted mean score is 48.30. The delayed post-test of the two groups showed a significant difference (F = 4.776, p < 0.05), showing
that the social regulation-based online learning framework significantly promoted the students’ knowledge continuity of learning
achievements in the mathematics related to permutation and combination. Moreover, its value of the effect size is 0.58, indicating that
Table 1
The coding scheme of learning behaviors.
Behavior Sub-Behavior Code Description
Tests conducting Conduct weekly tests WT Conduct weekly progress tests

Self-select the scope of tests SST Self-select subjects to conduct tests
Conduct unit tests UT Select unit-based tests
Conduct summative tests ST Conduct tests that have covered all the learned content
Notes organization Open notes ON Open personalized notebook
Add notes AN Add one question and relevant information into the personalized notebook
Delete notes DN Delete one question in the personalized notebook
Content review Read the text-based supplementary materials RM Read the text-based supplementary materials after tests
Read the status of the test RT Watch the answering status after tests
Watch video-based supplementary materials WV Watch video-based supplementary materials after tests
Browse the most recent test BRT Watch the content of the most recent tests
Browse previous test BT Watch the content from the completed tests
11
Table 2
The results of learning achievements shown by ANCOVA analysis.
Variables Groups N M SD Adj. M F Ƞ2
Drill and practice 1 Experimental group 32 33.97 21.57 33.59 0.46 .10
Control group 30 30.20 17.62 30.58
Drill and practice 2 Experimental group 32 38.25 26.75 37.74 3.24 .43
Control group 30 28.80 18.12 29.34
Drill and practice 3 Experimental group 32 38.75 21.44 38.31 12.60** .93
Control group 30 23.87 17.37 24.33
Post-test Experimental group 32 46.56 25.89 45.95 5.12* .60
Control group 30 35.93 18.71 36.54
Delay posttest Experimental group 32 56.56 21.28 56.13 4.78* .58
Control group 30 47.83 15.01 48.30
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
the social regulation-based online learning framework has favorable effects on students’ knowledge continuity of learning
achievements.
This study further explored the learning achievements of the students with different levels of prior knowledge by categorizing the
students in both groups into high, medium and low achievers based on their scores in the pre-test. The highest 33% of students were
categorized into the high achiever group, while the lowest 33% were the low achievers. The remaining students were the medium
achievers. From the ANCOVA results in Table 3, it was found that the low achievers in the experimental group had lower test scores in
the first round of drill and practice than those in the control group (F = 9.78, p < 0.01). In the second round of drill and practice, there
was no significant difference between the low achievers in the two groups. Moreover, in the third round of drill and practice, the low
achievers in the experimental group had significantly better test scores than those in the control group (F = 4.72, p < 0.05). In addition,
the medium achievers and high achievers in the experimental group also showed better test scores than those in the control group with
F = 9.78 (p < 0.01) and F = 5.09 (p < 0.05), respectively. This reveals that the proposed approach generally benefits students at all
prior knowledge levels, but it is particularly effective for low achievers.
In order to understand the effects of different learning modes on the learning achievement of the students with low, medium, and
high levels of prior knowledge, this study first transformed the students’ pre-test and delayed post-test scores into standardized Z-
scores. All students were then sorted into nine groups according to their z-scores on the pre-test and the delayed post-test, from highest
to lowest. The cross-analysis table is shown in Table 4. According to the table, it was found that there were nine experimental group
students who were classified as low achievers in the pre-test; after the experiment, five (56%) of them were still classified as low
achievers in the delayed post-test, while three (33%) and one (11%) were promoted to the medium and high achievers, respectively.
On the other hand, there were 11 low achievers in the control group based on the pre-test scores; after the experiment, nine (82%) of
them were still categorized as low achievers, and only two (18%) of them were promoted to medium achievers. That is, in comparison
with the self-regulated mode, the students with low prior knowledge were more likely to make improvements and become medium or
high achievers through the social-regulated mode.
5.2. Learning attitudes
In order to explore the students’ performance of learning attitudes, the one-way ANCOVA was also conducted. The homogeneity of
regression slopes was also confirmed, indicating that it was appropriate to employ the analysis of covariance (F = 0.01, p > 0.05).
Therefore, the one-way ANCOVA was conducted for investigating the students’ performance of learning attitudes.
Table 3
The ANCOVA results of learning achievements between the two groups of students with different prior knowledge levels.
Adj. M of Experimental group Adj. M of Control group F
High (N = 11 for Exp and 10 for Con) Drill and practice 1 46.13 44.06 0.07
Drill and practice 2 60.80 44.01 3.07
Post-test 64.92 52.73 2.18
Delayed post-test 71.91 59.13 5.09*
Medium (N = 12 for Exp and 9 for Con) Drill and practice 1 37.31 24.26 2.54
Drill and practice 3 43.55 23.49 9.08**
Post-test 47.67 31.54 3.61
Delayed post-test 58.24 50.26 1.78
Low (N = 9 for Exp and 11 for Con) Drill and practice 1 15.74 24.03 9.78**
Drill and practice 3 23.03 12.76 4.72*
Post-test 25.75 23.64 0.19
Delayed post-test 38.03 34.37 0.28
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
12
Table 4
Cross-analysis of the distribution of the pre-test and delayed post-test of the two groups of students with different prior knowledge levels.
Groups Classification of learning achievement Delayed post-test
Low Medium High
Pre-test score of experimental group (N = 32) Low (N = 9) 5 (56%) 3 (33%) 1 (11%)

Medium (N = 12) 2 (17%) 6 (50%) 4 (33%)
High (N = 11) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 9 (82%)
Pre-test score of control group (N = 30) Low (N = 11) 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%)
Medium (N = 9) 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%)
High (N = 10) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 5 (50%)
After the completion of the experiment, the two groups completed the post-questionnaire of learning attitudes to analyze the
learning differences when they used different learning modes. The results of the ANCOVA analysis are shown in Table 5. Based on the
analysis results, there is no significant difference in the confidence in learning mathematics of the two groups (F = 2.52, p > 0.05),
indicating that the students using the different learning modes did not show significant differences in their confidence in learning
mathematics. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in the mathematics anxiety of the two groups (F = 1.42, p > 0.05),
showing that the students using the different learning modes did not show significant differences in their mathematics anxiety.
However, there is a significant difference between the two groups’ learning motivations in mathematics (F = 6.26, p < 0.05),
demonstrating that the students using the different learning modes did have significant differences in their mathematics learning
motivations. Based on the analysis results, the social regulation-based online learning framework can increase students’ mathematics
learning motivations. This result is consistent with what has been reported by several previous studies, that is, giving suitable supports
can boost students’ learning motivations (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Azevedo & Hadwin, 2005; Land & Greene, 2000).
5.3. Behavioral analysis
Regarding the understanding of the impacts on students’ learning when using either the social regulation-based online learning
framework or the conventional self-regulated learning framework, this study has further investigated the differences in students’
online learning behaviors between these two frameworks. This study used lag sequential analysis (LSA) to analyze a total of 62
participants’ learning behaviors, and gave them codes. These codes can be used to discuss the students’ behavioral patterns. The basic
theory of lag sequential analysis (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997) is to code the behaviors of students according to their chronological
order. For example, after conducting the weekly test (WT), students conducted the unit test (UT), clicked the button to see the
text-based supplementary materials (RM), and then clicked the button of the video-based supplementary materials to watch the video
(WV). The codes of these behaviors will be WT→UT→RM→WV. This study collected the codes of 8573 student behaviors. After coding,
lag sequential analysis was used to investigate the online learning behaviors of the learners. This method firstly calculates the fre
quency of each behavior connected to the next. Then, it calculates the z value of each sequence to confirm whether the connectedness
of each sequence has a significant difference (If the value of z > 1.96, it shows a significant difference in the sequence (p < 0.05)).
Lastly, it uses the behavioral transition diagram to illustrate the significant sequences (Fig. 11).
According to Fig. 11, the experimental group used the social regulation-based online learning framework and produced a total of 31
significant behavioral sequences. The control group used the conventional self-regulated learning framework and produced a total of
19 significant behavioral sequences. Based on this result, students from the experimental group had more online learning behaviors
compared to those in the control group.
According to Fig. 12, the social regulation-based online learning framework and the conventional self-regulated learning frame
work show some similar behavioral patterns. For instance, the behavioral sequence of WT→WT shows that students repeatedly
conducted weekly tests. The learning system permitted students to repeatedly conduct tests and do revision, and they could choose the
highest marks from one test to be the grade of that week. Therefore, the reason for such a behavioral sequence (WT→WT) may be that
the students wanted to have higher marks in the test. On the other hand, another identical behavioral sequence is because the students
conducted unit tests after summative tests (ST→UT). After conducting the unit test, they usually took notes (UT→AN、AN→AN) and
then watched the video-based supplementary materials (AN→WV). These essential sequences illustrate the continuity of behavioral
patterns in learning. That is, the learners conducted summative tests that covered all the topics and then selected one particular topic
for testing. When they focused on the particular topic in the test, they would make notes about unfamiliar topics and finally watch
video-based supplementary materials to resolve any doubts.
Regarding the revision of the teaching materials, the two groups showed bidirectional results in BT↔BT and BT↔RT, indicating
that they repeatedly browsed their previous test results and test feedback. The bidirectional results of RM↔RM and WV↔RM indicate
that the students watched the text-based and video-based supplementary materials after the tests. According to the results, the students
of the two groups wanted to improve their understanding related to the teaching materials during revision. It is because they
repeatedly browsed the text-based and video-based supplementary materials to confirm their understanding of the teaching materials.
Therefore, they showed such behaviors.
Fig. 13 shows some different behavioral sequences between the social regulation-based online learning framework and the con
ventional self-regulated learning framework. Referring to test conducting, the experimental group had more significant behavior
patterns (WT↔WT, SST↔SST, UT↔UT, ST↔ST, WT↔ST) when compared to that of the control group, indicating that the learners
13
Table 5
The results of learning attitudes shown by ANCOVA analysis.
Variables Groups N M SD Adj. M F
Confidence in Learning Mathematics Experimental group 32 3.42. 0.15 3.35 2.517

Control group 30 2.93 0.15 3.01
Learning Motivation in Mathematics Experimental group 32 3.70 0.86 3.57 6.261*
Control group 30 2.93 0.93 3.07
Mathematics Anxiety Experimental group 32 3.39 0.93 3.27 1.421
Control group 30 2.92 0.95 3.04
*p < 0.05.
Fig. 11. Behavioral learning patterns of the students in the two groups.
Fig. 12. Identical behavioral sequences of the two learning modes.
from the experimental group frequently conducted different tests. Moreover, the experimental group had more frequent behaviors of
reviewing the content of the tests after conducting tests (WT→RM, UT→RM, RM↔BT, BRT→RM, BRT→WV, RT→RM, RT↔RT). This
kind of behavioral sequence indicates that the social regulation-based online learning framework encourages learners to read text-
14
Fig. 13. Different behavioral sequences of the two learning modes.
based supplementary materials after conducting tests and triggers them to repeatedly read wrongly answered questions from the
previously completed tests or from the most recent test as well as to watch the text-based or the video-based supplementary materials.
Regarding notes organization, learners from the experimental group repeatedly opened notes and deleted notes (ON↔DN). After
conducting tests, they added notes and then read text-based supplementary materials (WT→AN, AN→RM). This indicates that the
social regulation-based online learning framework facilitates learners’ systematic learning.
On the contrary, learners from the control group only read the results of tests after conducting tests (WT→BRT). They did not show
the behaviors of seeing or correcting the wrongly answered questions. With regard to notes organization, learners in the control group
only read the feedback given by the teacher and then opened the notes (RT→ON) to see and confirm the notes as well as the system
feedback. They did not add or delete notes.
6. Discussion and conclusion
In recent years, the online learning environment has become mature. Many scholars believe that online learning is beneficial to the
self-directed learning of students, and they also suggest increasing guidance or introducing learning strategies to help them experience
in-depth learning in the online learning environment (Kim & Lim, 2018; Pardo et al., 2017). Among them, scholars believe that the
self-regulated learning strategy is a beneficial strategy to guide students’ learning strategies during online learning activities (Rienties,
Tempelaar, Nguyen, & Littlejohn, 2019). Moreover, if students make reference to other students’ self-regulated ways when engaged in
self-regulated learning, it can help them to make appropriate choices related to goal setting and learning strategies (Zheng & Huang,
2016). Therefore, this study developed the social regulation-based online learning framework to guide students to make reference to
other students’ self-regulated ways and to plan suitable learning goals and learning strategies for themselves during online learning.
Regarding the design of the investigation, this study assigned students from the experimental group to use the social regulation-based
online learning framework, while students from the control group used the conventional self-regulated learning framework. It was
investigated whether the social regulation-based online learning framework would provide positive assistance for learning achieve
ments and learning attitudes. Moreover, this study used sequential pattern analysis to understand whether there were significant
differences in the learning behaviors of students from the two groups in different online learning environments.
Based on the results of the ANCOVA analysis of the learning achievement, the mean scores of the students who used the social
regulation-based online learning framework were significantly better than those of the students who used the conventional self-
regulated learning framework, starting from drill and practice 3. The result indicates that the social regulation-based online
learning framework can efficiently boost students’ learning efficiency in learning permutations and combinations, as shown by the
results of their learning achievement. Furthermore, the mean score of the delayed post-test for the students in the experimental group is
significantly higher than that of the students in the control group, indicating that learners who use the social regulation-based online
learning framework can have better effects in the knowledge continuity of learning achievements. The results of this study are
consistent with the findings of Molenaar, Roda, Boxtel, and Sleegers (2012), who reported positive impacts of social regulation on
students’ learning performances. It is inferred that sharing learning objectives and strategies during the self-regulated learning process
could efficiently boost learning, as indicated by Zheng et al. (2019).
According to the result of the ANCOVA analysis related to the learning motivations in mathematics, using the social regulation-
based online learning framework resulted in learners having better learning motivations. Based on the previous research, it was
indicated that there are positive correlations between learning motivations and learning achievements (Leroy & Bressoux, 2016).
Having higher learning motivations will influence learners’ learning achievements (Howland & Moore, 2002). This result also explains
the reason why the learners who used the social regulation-based online learning framework had higher learning achievements.
15
However, the learning performances of the learners who used the social regulation-based online learning framework were not
significantly better than those of the learners who used the conventional self-regulated learning framework in the fields of confidence
in learning mathematics and mathematics anxiety. The reason may be that confidence in learning mathematics and mathematics
anxiety need effective intervention for a certain period of time before they can gradually change (Hwang, Hsu, Lai, & Hsueh, 2017).
Therefore, this study could not intervene sufficiently in the students’ social regulated learning at 3 weeks to change their confidence in
learning mathematics and mathematics anxiety.
Sequential pattern analysis was also performed in this study to examine differences in the students’ learning behaviors when they
used the different learning modes. The result showed that the students who used the social regulation-based online learning framework
not only performed more learning behaviors than the control group students, but had more actions of self-modification and notes
organization. According to Ilter (2019) and Liu, Huang, and Chien (2019), note taking is regarded as a combination of cognitive
abilities which support students’ self-monitoring skill. The experimental group students’ behaviors in this study are consistent with this
position. For example, they watched the text-based and video-based supplementary materials related to the wrongly answered
questions. They also added and modified their notes. However, students who used the conventional self-regulated learning framework
did not exhibit such behaviors. As a result, students will focus more on learning reflections and knowledge construction with the
introduction of social regulation. It enables them to have better learning efficiency in their learning achievements.
In conclusion, this study identified the influences of the social regulation-based online learning framework on students’ learning,
and compared them with those of the conventional self-regulated learning framework. It not only compared the learning achievements
and learning attitudes, but also the differences in learning behaviors when the two groups of students used different learning modes in
the learning environment. Below are suggestions for future research:
(1). As the sample size of this study was not large, the sample size of future studies can be increased to provide more powerful
evidence.
(2). Although the LSA analysis used in this study could help us further understand the students’ learning behaviors, it still had some
shortcomings. It is recommended that other methods be used (e.g., data mining) in the future to analyze students’ learning
behaviors from both global and individual perspectives.
(3). To realize the effects of social regulation-based online learning mode in depth, it is suggested that long-term experiments be
conducted in future studies to observe the changes in online behaviors of learners in different online learning modes.
(4). It is recommended that the influences on different groups of students when they use the social regulation-based online learning
framework be investigated. For example, learners with different learning styles, learners with higher or lower learning
achievements or students with higher or lower learning motivations can be recruited. This can facilitate students’ efficient
learning.
Credit author statement
Gwo-Jen Hwang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - Review & Editing. Sheng-Yuan Wang: Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. Chiu-Lin Lai: Formal analysis, Data Curation,
Writing - Original Draft.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under contract number MOST-
106-2511-S-152-012-MY3 and MOST-108-2511-H-011-005-MY3.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104031.
References
Alexiou, A., & Paraskeva, F. (2010). Enhancing self-regulated learning skills through the implementation of a e-portfolio tool. Procedia Social and Behaviorial Science, 2,
3048–3054.
Allan, S. (1991). Ability grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted. Educational Leadership, 48(6).
Ashton, S., & Davies, R. S. (2015). Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course. Distance Education, 36(3), 312–334. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01587919.2015.1081733
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3),
523–535.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional
Science, 33(5–6), 367–379.
Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: A summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 56(1), 93–100.
16
Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. In
M. Khine, & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Computers, cognition, and collaboration in education (pp. 225–247). Amsterdam: Springer.
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? Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(1), 45–72.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An Introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalization
method affect learning? Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 39–58.
de Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130
Baxter, J., A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2005). Writing in mathematics: an alternative form of communication for academically low-achieving students. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 119–135.
Benson, A. (2002). Using online learning to meet workforce demand: A case study of stakeholder influence. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 443–452.
Bergin, S., Reilly, R., & Traynor, D. (2005). Examining the role of self-regulated learning on introductory programming performance. In ICER ‘05 proceedings of the first
annual conference on international computing education research (pp. 81–86).
Brecht, H. D., & Ogilby, S. M. (2008). Enabling a comprehensive teaching strategy: Video lectures. Journal of Information Technology Education, 7, 71–86.
Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9061-0
Carliner, S. (2004). An overview of online learning (2nd ed.). Armherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.
Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Weng, S. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning.
Computers & Education, 58(2), 775–786.
Chen, M. R., A., Hwang, G., J., & Chang, Y., Y. (2019). A reflective thinking-promoting approach to enhancing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement,
participation behaviors, reflective thinking and project learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2288–2307.
Chen, Y. C. (2019). Effect of mobile augmented reality on learning performance, motivation, and math anxiety in a math course. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 57(7), 1695–1722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119854036
Chen, C.-M., & Huang, S.-H. (2014). Web-based reading annotation system with an attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading
performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 959–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12119
Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers &
Education, 80, 108–121.
Conrad, D. (2002). Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. The Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 1–19.
Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments.
Computers & Education, 80, 312–320.
Dillahunt, T., Wang, Z. G., & Teasley, S. D. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 177–196.
Diver, P., & Martinez, I. (2015). MOOCs as a massive research laboratory: Opportunities and challenges. Distance Education, 36(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01587919.2015.1019968
Doganay, A., & Bal, A. P. (2010). The measurement of students’ achievement in teaching primary school fifth year mathematics classes. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim
Bilimleri, 10(1), 199–215.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics
by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324–326.
Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat (2nd ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Gabriel, L. M., & Gilberto, L. (2007). Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on recreational learning objects. Computers and
Education, 48, 618–641.
Gil, R., Virgili-Goma, J., Garcia, R., & Mason, C. (2015). Emotions ontology for collaborative modelling and learning of emotional responses. Computers in Human
Behavior, 51, 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.100
Gottfried, M. A., & Kirksey, J. J. (2019). Math instructional practices in general education classrooms with and without students with high-incidence disabilities.
Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819857830
Guskey, T. (1980). Mastery learning: Applying the theory. Theory Into Practice, 19(2), 104–111.
Guzdial, M., Kolodner, J., Hmelo, C., Narayanan, H., Carlson, D., Rappin, N., … Newstetter, W. (1996). Computer support for learning through complex problem
solving. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 43–45.
Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education,
31(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500392433
Heinrich, C. J. (2015). The role of performance management in good governance and its application in public education. Employment Research, 22(3), 2.
Henderikx, M., Kreijns, K., Munoz, J. C., & Kalz, M. (2019). Factors influencing the pursuit of personal learning goals in MOOCs. Distance Education, 40(2), 187–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1600364
Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47
(2), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review,
12, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10),
59–64.
HomeKay, R., & Kletskin, I. (2012). Evaluating the use of problem-based video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Computers & Education, 59,
619–627.
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Analysis of problem-solving-based online asynchronous discussion pattern. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1),
17–28.
Howland, J. J., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in internet-based courses. Distance Education, 23, 183–197.
Hwang, G., J., Hsu, T., C., Lai, C., L., & Hsueh, C., J. (2017). Interaction of problem-based gaming and learning anxiety in language students’ English listening
performance and progressive behavioral patterns. Computers & Education, 106, 26–42.
Ilter, I. (2019). Efficacy of note-taking skills instruction supported by self-monitoring on the reading comprehension. Egitim Ve Bilim-Education and Science, 44(198),
229–253. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2019.7862
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2003). Trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS), 1995, 1999, and 2003.
Boston: Author.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5–23.
Kim, S., & Chang, M. D. (2010). Computer games for the math achievement of diverse students. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 224–232.
Kim, D., & Lim, C. (2018). Promoting socially shared metacognitive regulation in collaborative project-based learning: A framework for the design of structured
guidance. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1379484
Kizilcec, R., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online
courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33.
Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.882
17
Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 48(1), 45–67.
Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in
mathematics. Computers & Education, 54, 3–13.
Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320–1329. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.014
Leris, D., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., Hernandez, M., & Bueno, C. (2017). Validation of indicators for implementing an adaptive platform for MOOCs. Computers in Human
Behavior, 72, 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.054
Leroy, N., & Bressoux, P. (2016). Does amotivation matter more than motivation in predicting mathematics learning gains? A longitudinal study of sixth-grade
students in France. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 41–53.
Liu, M. C., Huang, Y. M., & Chien, Y. C. (2019). Facilitating vocabulary note taking on computers through the deep processing strategy. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 56(8), 1296–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117739411
Lu, O. H. T., Huang, A. Y. Q., Huang, J. C. H., Lin, A. J. Q., Ogata, H., & Yang, S. J. H. (2018). Applying learning analytics for the early prediction of students’ academic
performance in blended learning. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 220–232.
Lung-Guang, N. (2019). Decision-making determinants of students participating in MOOCs: Merging the theory of planned behavior and self-regulated learning
model. Computers & Education, 134, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.004
London Mathematical Society. (1995). Tackling the mathematics problem. London: LMS.
Mason, G., S., Shuman, T., R., & Cook, K., E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering
course. IEEE transactions on education, 56(4), 430–435.
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139.
McLaughlin, J., E., Griffin, L., M., Esserman, D., A., Davidson, C., A., Glatt, D., M., Roth, M., T., … Mumper, R., J. (2013). Pharmacy Student Engagement,
Performance, and Perception in a Flipped Satellite Classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(9), 196.
Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan, S. (2011). Learning with videos vs. learning with print: The role of interactive features. Learning and Instruction, 21(6),
687–704.
Michailidis, N., Kapravelos, E., & Tsiatsos, T. (2018). Interaction analysis for supporting students’ self-regulation during blog-based CSCL activities. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 37–47.
Molenaar, I., Roda, C., Boxtel, C., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Dynamic scaffolding of socially regulated learning in a computer-based learning environment. Computers &
Education, 59, 515–523.
Muuro, M. E., Wagacha, W. P., Oboko, R., & Kihoro, J. (2014). Students’Perceived challenges in an online collaborative learning environment: A case of higher
learning institutions in Nairobi, Kenya. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6), 132–161.
Nunez-Pena, M. I., Suarez-Pellicioni, M., & Bono, R. (2013). Effects of math anxiety on student success in higher education. International Journal of Educational
Research, 58, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.004
Pardo, A., Han, F. F., & Ellis, R. A. (2017). Combining university student self-regulated learning indicators and engagement with online learning events to predict
academic performance. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2016.2639508
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Polya, G., & Conway, J. H. (2014). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Nguyen, Q., & Littlejohn, A. (2019). Unpacking the intertemporal impact of self-regulation in a blended mathematics environment.
Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.007
Roick, J., & Ringeisen, T. (2018). Students’ math performance in higher education: Examining the role of self-regulated learning and self-efficacy. Learning and
Individual Differences, 65, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.018
Rowe, M., Osadnik, C. R., Pritchard, S., & Maloney, S. (2019). These may not be the courses you are seeking: A systematic review of open online courses in health
professions education. BMC Medical Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1774-9
Sahin, D., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of Augmented Reality Technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education.
Computers & Education, 144, 103710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103710
Sariscsany, M. J., & Pettigrew, F. (1997). Effectiveness of interactive video instruction on teacher’s classroom management declarative knowledge. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 16(2), 229–240.
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle school
students. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/428745
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance:Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scogin, S. C., Alexander, C., Gruenler, L., Mader, C. M., & Bartoszek, M. (2020). Using authentic project-based learning in a first-year lab to elevate students’
perceptions of engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(1), 186–200.
Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. G. (1994). Cognitive play and mathematical learning in computer microworld. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 111–134.
Stoeffler, K., Rosen, Y., Bolsinova, M., & von Davier, A. A. (2020). Gamified performance assessment of collaborative problem solving skills. Computers in Human
Behavior, 104, Article 106036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.033
Stone, N., J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 437–475.
Su, Y., Li, Y. Y., Hu, H. N., & Rose, C. P. (2018). Exploring college English language learners’ self and social regulation of learning during wiki-supported collaborative
reading activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9269-y
Sun, Z., & Xie, K. (2018). The role of self-regulated learning in students’ success in flipped undergraduate math courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 41–53.
Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., Hong, C. D., McDade, J., … Giabbanelli, P. J. (2017). The nature and level of learner-learner interaction in a
chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3
ter Vrugte, J., de Jong, T., Vandercruysse, S., Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H., & Elen, J. (2015). How competition and heterogeneous collaboration interact in
prevocational game-based mathematics education. Computers & education, 89, 42–52.
Thomson, S., Cresswell, J., & De Bertoli, L. (2003). Facing the future: A focus on mathematical literacy among Australian 15-year-old students in PISA 2003. Australian
Council for Educational Research. Victoria: Camberwell.
Tieben, N. (2019). Remedy mathematics course participation and dropout among higher education students of engineering. Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 22
(5), 1175–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-019-00906-z
Tsai, C., C., Lin, S., S., & Yuan, S., M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38(1–3), 241–252.
Tyson, W., & Roksa, J. (2016). How schools structure opportunity: The role of curriculum and placement in math attainment. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 44, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.04.003
Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584
Wang, T. H. (2010). Web-based dynamic assessment: Taking assessment as teaching and learning strategy for improving students’ e-learning effectiveness. Computers
& Education, 54(4), 1157–1166.
Wang, T. H. (2014). Developing an assessment-centered e-learning system for improving student learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 73, 189–203.
Whitin, P. (2004). Promoting problem-posing explorations. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(4), 180.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated learning and socio-cognitive theory. In B. McGaw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of
education (3rd ed.) (New York).
18
Yang, Q., F., Chang, S., C., Hwang, G., J., & Zou, D. (2020). Balancing cognitive complexity and gaming level: Effects of a cognitive complexity-based competition
game on EFL students’ English vocabulary learning performance, anxiety and behaviors. Computers & Education, 148.
Yew, E. H., & Yong, J. J. (2014). Student perceptions of facilitators’ social congruence, use of expertise and cognitive congruence in problem-based learning.
Instructional Science, 42, 795–815.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006a). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness.
Information &Management, 43(1), 15–27.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006b). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness.
Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27.
Zheng, L. Q., & Huang, R. H. (2016). The effects of sentiments and co-regulation on group performance in computer supported collaborative learning. Internet and
Higher Education, 28, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.10.001
Zheng, J., Xing, W., & Zhu, G. X. (2019). Examining sequential patterns of self- and socially shared regulation of STEM learning in a CSCL environment. Computers &
Education, 136, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.005
Zimmerman, B., J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulated learning: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation
(pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183, 2008.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learner : Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student difference in self-regulated learning : Relating Grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.
19

Effects of A Social Regulation-Based Online Learning Framework On Students Learning Achievements and Behaviors in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of A Social Regulation-Based Online Learning Framework On Students Learning Achievements and Behaviors in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education 160 (2021) 104031

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

Effects of a social regulation-based online learning framework on

2.1. Mathematics education

2.2. Online learning

2.3. Self-regulated learning and social regulation

Fig. 1. Four recurring stages of self-regulation.

3. The development of the social regulation-based online learning framework

Fig. 3. Functions of the “Goal Setting” in the system.

Fig. 4. The system Time Management and Learning Strategies functions.

Fig. 5. Weekly Tests and Unit Tests in the system.

Fig. 6. Screen of “tests review".

Fig. 7. Content of “my progress".

4.2. Experimental procedure

Fig. 10. Procedures of the experiment.

5.1. Learning achievement

Tests conducting Conduct weekly tests WT Conduct weekly progress tests

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

5.2. Learning attitudes

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Low Medium High

Pre-test score of experimental group (N = 32) Low (N = 9) 5 (56%) 3 (33%) 1 (11%)

5.3. Behavioral analysis

Confidence in Learning Mathematics Experimental group 32 3.42. 0.15 3.35 2.517

Fig. 12. Identical behavioral sequences of the two learning modes.

Fig. 13. Different behavioral sequences of the two learning modes.

6. Discussion and conclusion

Credit author statement

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104031.

You might also like