Supporting Self-Regulated Learning With Digital Media Using Motivational Regulation and Metacognitive Prompts

ABSTRACT

Studying with digital media, learners often struggle because of inadequate self-regulation. Previous research presented clear evidence of metacognitive prompts being effective in supporting learning with digital media. This study examines the potential of motivational regulation prompts, which are assumed to additionally support self-regulated learning. During a 50-minute learning session in a digital media learning environment, 215 university students received either no prompts, only metacognitive prompts, only motivational regulation prompts, or both types of prompts. Task value, metacognitive control, task-related learning activities, and knowledge were assessed at a pretest, posttest, and follow-up. The results replicated known positive effects of metacognitive prompts and revealed additional supportive effects of motivational regulation prompts on all dependent variables. Path modeling of the experimentally induced changes was in line with a theoretical model specifying proximal and distal effects of both prompts. Altogether, this indicates that especially motivational regulation prompts could be an effective scaffold to support SRL with digital media.

KEYWORDS:

• Digital media
• metacognitive control
• motivational regulation
• prompting
• self-regulated learning

Notes

1. All prompts are available as an electronic supplement.

2. Participants were classified as nonrecognizing of the prompts when they reported that they noticed none or, at best, one of the prompts (“How many hints in orange boxes did you recognize?”).

3. Internal consistencies should be interpreted keeping in mind that the measured strategies were rather heterogeneous and a uniform distribution on each strategy was not to be expected. As such, the scales offer, despite borderline satisfactory internal consistencies, a comprehensive although rough total of the students’ employment of metacognitive and motivational regulation strategies, respectively, that is sufficient for the purpose of manipulation check.

4. Separate analyses of the prompting effects on the level of the task value facets attainment value, utility value, and intrinsic value resulted in similar patterns of effects as the analyses with the conflated task value variable.

5. Toward the employment of motivational regulation strategies there was also a statistically significant interaction effect, F(1, 211) = 6.67, p = .01, η² = .031, indicating that students used more motivational regulation strategies when they received—in addition to motivational regulation prompts—metacognitive prompts. The interaction effect for metacognitive control was not statistically significant, F(1, 211) = 95, p = 33, η² = .005.

6. The estimated means (after controlling for T1 knowledge) were M = .61 for the control group, M = .62 for metacognitive prompts, M = .64 for motivational regulation prompts, and M = .65 for both prompts.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant number 01PK15002A).