British Journal of Research Open Access

Keywords

Self-regulated learning, Digital environment, Digital technology, Learning environments, Instructional technology, Self-efficacy, Metacognition, Scaffolding

Introduction

The term self-regulation (i.e., collective actions used to progress toward a desired goal) first appeared in the educational literature in the 1960s. [1] In educational discourse, the concept of selfregulated learning (SRL) emerged in the 1980s and gained prominence in the 1990s. [2]

Theoretically, SRL involves cognitive strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration, organization and metacognition. [3,4] Metacognition is the knowledge and awareness related to thinking processes together with the strategies and ability to appraise and adjust those processes. [5,6] The self-regulated student intentionally exerts effort toward managing and directing complicated learning activities. [7] Selfregulation in learning is critically related to learning effectiveness and high-achieving students are typically highly self-regulated in their approach to learning. [8-11]

Instructional applications of digital technology have proven particularly effective in promoting SRL. [12-16] According to Wang [17] “the main advantage of e- Learning is that it overcomes the limits of time and space and provides learners opportunities to perform self-directed learning”. This is fortunate since, as a result of increased autonomy, “online learners must take greater responsibility for the management and control of their own academic progress”. [18] This paper summarizes current theoretical models of SRL and reviews recent empirical investigations germane to applications of digital technology to promote SRL. Based upon such theoretical and applied research, a comprehensive instructional framework of SRL in digital environments is presented. Such a framework organizes the relationships between the processes of SRL and the mechanisms by which course designers can develop, and teachers/tutors can deliver, digital learning experiences that support and assist in the development SRL.

Theoretical models of self-regulated learning

Self-regulated students set taskoriented and reasonable goals, take responsibility for their learning and are highly motivated to learn. [19] Zimmerman [20] proposed a unique and cyclical three phase theoretical models of SRL which comprises forethought, performance and reflection. The forethought phase includes motivation and cognitive processes such as goal setting and strategic planning. The motivation stems from beliefs about learning (i.e., personal ability and task purpose) and is a consequence of self-efficacy, outcome expectation and goal orientation. The performance phase involves self-control and self-observation. Self-control refers to the use of specific strategies such as self-talk and self-instruction. Self-observation includes self-monitoring, time-management and study skills. [21,22] Self-judgement and self-reaction from the third phase, reflection. Self-judgment involves self-evaluation, which is the comparison of observed performance against a standard [23,24] and perceptions of the reasons for success and failure. [25] Self-reaction refers to the individual views of performance and can be either defensive or adaptive. With respect to SRL, defensive reactions include withdrawing or avoiding opportunities to learn. [26]; adaptive reactions include changing learning strategies or behaviors to increase the effectiveness of goal-directed behaviour. [27]

The three phase framework described by Zimmerman20 is complemented by Winne’s28 Four Turning Points Model which outlines critical processes or turning points required for SRL. Related to the forethought phase, the first turning point occurs when the student understands the learning environment and task requirements. This turning point requires individual comprehension of the factors that affect academic success, such as time requirements and environmental opportunities and constraints. Also subsumed within the forethought phase, goal setting (i.e., Turning Point # 2) requires the student to identify the learning task or academic goal and to adapt or develop strategies for achieving that goal. Related to the performance phase, the ability to apply strategies (i.e., Turning Point # 3) occurs when Turning Points 1 and 2 are satisfied. Corresponding to the reflection phase, the learner must also be motivated to monitor personal progress toward the goal and to adjust strategies (Turning Point # 4) as may be necessary.“Although there are important differences between various theoretical definitions, self-regulated learners are generally characterized as active, efficiently managing their own learning through monitoring and strategy use”. [29]

Based on the theoretical models of Zimmerman [20] and Winne, [28] Figure 1 presents a summary of the essential cyclical processes of SRL. Comprehending the learning environment and the required task, at least in a preliminary sense, is fundamental to attempting to approach, address or complete the task and, thus, constitutes the core of SRL. First and foremost, the self-regulated learner must understand what is required in terms of demonstrations of learning and completion of assigned tasks. A student’s comprehension or understanding of task requirements is the consequence of prior knowledge, experience and interaction with others, including teachers and peers. [30,31] Planning refers to the manner in which the learner intends to tackle the required task. Planning involves allocating time to satisfy identified task requirements and strategizing with respect to actions directed toward achieving the specified objectives. [32] Planning and strategizing are ongoing and complementary processes of SRL. Strategies are identified, implemented and adapted or discarded in relation to their perceived utility in achieving task requirements. As the student works toward the task objective, self-monitoring facilitates personal evaluation of progress and allows for adjustment or regulation of individual goaldirectedbehaviour. [21,33] At a metacognitive level, self-regulated learners are continually evaluating their movement toward task completion and correspondingly evaluating the perceived effectiveness of the executed plan and related strategies. If progress toward completion of the required task is determined to be unsatisfactory, the task may be redefined or reinterpreted, the plan revised, strategies adjusted and so the cyclical processes continue until the task is satisfied relative to learner goals. [34] (See figure 1.)

Figure 1: The cyclical cognitive processes of self-regulated Learning

Zimmerman [20] maintained that SRL is not an innate characteristic, but can be developed via instruction and modelling by, for example, parents, teachers, coaches and peers. Winne, [28] argued that a fundamental objective of education is to enhance student capacity for independent learning (i.e., SRL). All learning environments, including digital environments, are directly focused on facilitating student success and, ultimately, focused on facilitating independent, selfregulated and lifelong learning. [13] Programs aimed at enhancing SRL typically include; 1) modelling demonstrations, 2) guided practice and 3) independent or self-reflective practice. [16] Technological developments have resulted in environments that are interactive and student centred and permit for distinct individual learning activities. [35,36] Although terms vary, a considerable volume of theoretical and applied research supports the contention that the instructional tools available in e-learning or digital learning environments are particularly well-suited to promoting SRL. [37]

Self-regulated learning in digital environments: Theoretical and applied research

Various terms are used to describe instructional applications of contemporary technologies. For example, e-learning is a general term used to describe learning environments that are: 1) networked, which enable instant updating, storage / retrieval, distribution and sharing of instructions or information; 2) available to the end user via a computer using standard internet technology; and 3) focused on the broadest view of learning that goes beyond the typical paradigms of instruction. [38] Similarly, Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELE) refer to “technology-based learning and instructional systems through which students acquire skills or knowledge, usually with the help of teachers or facilitators, learning support tools, and technological resources”. [17] With respect to Web-Based Learning Environments (WBLE), the internet is used to access materials and communicate with peers and instructors. [39] Digital Learning Environments (DLEs) are technical solutions that support learning, teaching and studying activities. [40] DLEs include any combination of educational software, digital learning tools, online study programs and e-learning resource. [41] It is common for DLEs in higher education to include a learning management system (LMS) that is able to track and report on instructional activities, classroom and online events, e-learning programs and learning content. [42] LMSs vary from being able to manage training and educational records to having the ability to distribute courses over the internet with features for online collaboration. [43] Although the generic nature of the term DLE is preferred, regardless of the specific expression used, the flexibility, adaptability and comprehensive range of available digital technologies are increasingly conceptualized as inherently supporting SRL. [44,45]

In traditional learning environments (i.e., face-to-face classrooms), teachers use instructional procedures to present curriculum materials. [46] In DLEs, learners make use of curriculum materials and instructional procedures via tools and technologies. Elements of the DLE (i.e., instructional technologies, materials and procedures) have the potential to facilitate SRL. Digital technology such as LMS (e.g., Moodle and Blackboard) and other resources (e.g., Apple teaching apps) support the delivery of instruction by providing teachers and students with accurate, meaningful and accessible information. Specific online tools (e.g., webconferencing, blogs and discussion forums) facilitate student collaboration with teachers and peers. [47] Computer-based assessments deliver immediate and formative feedback (e.g., online grade books). Such technologies have the capacity to promote the cyclical phases of SRL including task comprehension and then planning, strategizing and evaluating moving toward completion of the necessary task. In DLEs, technological systems, curriculum materials and instructional procedures enhance SRL by providing mechanisms and opportunities for students to clarify their understanding of the task, develop effective plans, select from repositories of strategies and monitor personal mastery of learning requirements. [4,18] Steffens [16] concluded that SRL is maximized in TELEs that, in addition to content, provide opportunities for student interaction, feedback and selfmonitoring.

Although the processes of SRL are cyclical (Figure 1), initial understanding of the task or problem is prerequisite to regulate approaches to satisfying the task requirements or solving the problem. [28,48] Darabi and colleagues [22] established that software such as Electronic Performance Support Systems and Electronic Plan (ePLan) promoted SRL in students by providing direction and assistance in delineation of the problem or the required learning task. Narciss, Proske and Koerndle [49] demonstrated that computer learning tools such as Study Desk supported SRL by providing note taking features and allowing students to seek further explanations as may be required. Santhanam, Sasidharan and Webster [50] reported that SRL increased by promoting students' understanding of required elearning activities.

Having determined preliminary understanding of required learning tasks, students who are self-regulated develop a plan and select strategies by which to approach the required tasks. [28,48] Banyard, Underwood and Twinner [51] reported that internet use in the classroom promoted SRL strategies such as planning, pacing and selfmanagement. Green, Bolick and Robertson [52] established that student planning was facilitated in a WBLE. Kramarski and Mizarchi [33] observed that the use of an online discussion tool increased peer interaction and use of SRL strategies such as selfevaluation. Yang [32] established that student use of performance control (i.e., selfinstruction and self-monitoring) and cognitive strategies were increased in WBLE. Hu and Gramling [53] noted that students in WBLE demonstrated metacognitive SRL processes (i.e., goal setting, strategic planning, self-monitoring and self-evaluation). Students also selected and executed both specific and general learning strategies including rereading, note taking, visualizing, using online audio support, help-seeking, time-management and effort-regulation.

From a metacognitive perspective, students who regulate their learning continuously monitor the accuracy of their understanding of the task and the utility of the plans and strategies used to satisfy the requirements of the task or achieve the desired outcome. [28,48] Such continuous evaluation allows for modification of plans and strategies, as may be required. Nicol [30] confirmed that the use of LMS by first-year university students increased SRL strategies such as progress monitoring. Denton, Madden, Roberts and Rowe [14] found that the use of computer-based assessment supported SRL by providing timely and relevant progress monitoring and feedback. Miller [23] reported that a majority of students expressed satisfaction for the capabilities of computer-based assessment in providing prompt grading and feedback. In a DLE, Kitsantas and Zimmerman [34] attributed improved motor-skills to continual progress monitoring. Geddes’ [15] sample of business students confirmed that online gradebook monitoring positively impacted on academic achievement and was used more than any other feedback tool.

SRL is promoted by teachers who provide instruction architecture that encourages students to ensure that the learning task is fully understood, select and execute effective plans and strategies and monitor personal progress. [28] Such instructional architecture is more readily available and applied in digital, as opposed to traditional, learning environments. [16,48] Trigano [54] established that scaffolded guidance in the TELE enhanced student use of cognitive strategies. Azevedo, Cromley, Thomas, Seibert and Trom [55] reported that the use of metacognitive guidance in WBLE was related to student use of SRL, this is, students provided with scaffolded guidance used planning strategies more often than students not provided with such online guidance. Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters and Cromley [56] confirmed that students who were provided with online scaffolded support, compared to those who were not, demonstrated significantly increased SRL (i.e., planning, strategizing and monitoring). Similarly, Kramarski and Michalsky [33] showed that students who were encouraged to use SRL through online scaffolded guidance outperformed students who were not provided with such guidance. Shen and colleagues [24] noted that scaffolded support of problem-based learning scenarios in WBLE improved student grades and SRL. Roll and others [3] established that computer-based tutoring systems such as the Geometry Cognitive Tutor provided students with automated scaffolding support to helpseeking strategies. With respect to college students, “some research evidence suggests that faculty can use social software tools to facilitate student self-regulated learning processes, such as goal setting, selfevaluation, and help seeking”. [57]

SRL is associated with a range of individual student differences, including level of self-efficacy, motivation and emotional control. [58,59] Such student characteristics may be more easily accommodated in digital, as opposed to traditional, learning environments. [15,60,61] Darabi and colleagues [22] established that training software increased student level of self-efficacy. Joo, Bong and Choi [62] reported that self-efficacy in learning predicted student cognitive strategy use and test performance in WBLE. Trigano [54] and Lenne, Abel, Trigabo and Leblanc [63] observed that TELE promoted student motivation. Steffens [31] discovered that TELEs supported cognitive and motivational components of SRL. Edens [64] demonstrated that elements of online course design improved student motivation and preparation for class. Lee and Tsai [65] reported a significant difference in collaboration, information searching and SRL between online and traditional learning environments; students perceived online or WBLE/TELE as offering a better collaboration experience. In reviewing the capacity of TELEs to promote SRL, Steffens [16] concluded that “self-regulated learning not only involved cognitive, but also motivational and emotional factors” and, by inference, that SRL is enhanced by teachers who provide students with emotional encouragement and support in the processes of learning.

Supported by the previously reviewed theoretical and applied research, SRL (i.e., comprehending the task, planning, strategizing and evaluating movement toward task completion) is influenced by a variety of: 1) learner characteristics such as self-efficacy, motivation and emotional control; 2) instructional elements such as scaffolded guidance, teacher feedback and peer collaboration; and 3) aspects of the digital environment such as LMS, teaching applications and collaborative tools. A comprehensive instructional framework organizes such influences on SRL in digital environments. While teachers and course designers have no direct or immediate control over innate student characteristics, they have considerable control over the selection and implementation of instructional elements and aspects of the digital environment. Puzziferro [10] acknowledged that, in addition to autonomously accessing and reading webbased resources, e-learners must also manage the structure and pace of their own learning processes and strategies. According to Wang, [61] “if learners cannot use selfregulatory learning behaviors to perform self-regulated learning, they will not have good e-Learning effectiveness”.

Self-regulated learning in digital environments: An instructional framework

With respect to instructional design, “technical and pedagogical choices are closely related”. [63] Proposed as a preliminary instructional framework, Table 1 organizes the relationships between the fundamental processes of SRL and the mechanisms by which course designers can develop, and teachers/tutors can deliver, digital learning experiences that support and facilitate SRL. Specifically, students must understand the requirements of the task to be completed, the skills to be demonstrated and/or the content to be learned. Teachers support such student comprehension by providing detailed directions and specific instructions. Such directions and instructions are provided in the DLE via a range of electronic resources. For example, live or recorded webconferencing sessions may include teacher explanation of essay requirements including marking criteria and submission dates. Answers to student questions during the live session may address many of the questions of students who view the recorded session. Alternatively, via asynchronous announcements, students might be encouraged to submit questions to be answered during the upcoming live webconferencing session. To maximize student use of the recorded sessions and thereby reduce demands on the tutor to repeatedly respond to student queries, the session link might be labelled, for example, Response to Student Questions on the First Essay. Organized as links to electronic resources, the DLE should include samples of essays that achieved low, average and high grades, detailed essay marking criteria, including rubrics and a list of common errors for which marks were deducted in previously student cohorts. Online discussion boards may facilitate peer interaction with respect to paraphrasing the required elements in the essay assignment and seeking peer review. A necessary conclusion to the task comprehension process of SRL is the development of a personal goal (e.g., a minimal passing grade, an average grade relative to the class, at least 80%, impress peers, hide inadequacies).“Online instructors can help learners identify and set challenging, proximal goals”. [66] Setting reasonable obtainable goals tends to allow students to be more motivated to perform than those students who are not given goals or who are merely encouraged to do their best. (See table 1.)

Table 1: An instructional framework of self-regulated learning in digital environments

Although the processes of SRL are cyclical and fluid, it is important to suggest a progression in discussing the instructional framework presented in Table 1. That is, once the student has some understanding of the material to be learned, the task to be completed or the skill to be developed and once he/she has set a personal achievement goal, a plan must be formulated to achieve that goal. A key cognitive process is planning that “provides for the regulation of behavior such as asking questions, problem solving, self-monitoring, and impulse control”. [67] In learning environments, planning involves the management and regulation of time, effort and resources. Planning also involves the development, selection and/or adaptation of strategies to achieve the personal goal. [66] To facilitate student planning, instructional designers might include calendaring tool and automated announcements to remind learners of important dates and pending deadlines.

Students who develop plans and strategies to achieve personal learning goals are actively involved in their learning. [68] Web-based technology is particularly wellsuited to promoting active student involvement in the processes of learning. [68-70] According to Yu, [71] the many advantages of network technology (e.g., place, time, device and platform-independence, immense storage space, multimedia capabilities, high processing speeds, and instant data retrieval and management) enable the design and development of web-based student questiongeneration learning systems. Questions posed by teachers, peers and the student him/herself force consideration of approaches to answering such questions. Contemporary web-conferencing systems permit rich-media tools to be integrated, offering inventive possibilities for instantiating synchronous online learning. Screen-sharing, text chat, whiteboards, communal note areas, Voice-over IP and so on provide a powerful collection of tools with which to present information, model processes and share concepts. [72] Task and domain-specific mnemonics and algorithms may be available to students as interactive and/or multimedia resources. The teacher/ tutor should scaffold support to students via the provision of partial solutions and learning activities that have some sections completed. In most cases, a variety of realtime and delayed-time communication options support interactions between peers and with the teacher/tutor. [66]

The student who is self-regulated continuously monitors and evaluates his/her understanding of the task, the appropriateness of his/her personal learning goals, the effectiveness of his/her plan and the success of the strategies implemented. “Teachers generally feel that students’ lack of time management skills is the greatest problem and obstacle to learning in virtual environments”. [68] Summarized in Table 1, as part of the planning and strategizing processes of SRL, students manage their time and effort by appropriate allocation of personal resources, actively seeking support for their learning by interacting with peers and tutors, accessing available materials and resources and making effective use of recommended and essential digital applications and tools. With respect to instructional design, calendaring tools and automated reminders may functions to support time management in students who lack such skills. Successful scaffolding requires collaboration or support for a learner or group of learners from teachers or other more able partners who afford appropriately challenging activities accompanied by the proper quantity and quality of assistance. [73]

Wang [61] claimed that self-assessment is the most fundamental aspect of SRL. Students who continuously examine their own learning and evaluate the extent to which they are moving toward personal learning goals have the capacity to modified plans and strategies, as may be necessary. Monitoring and evaluating learning efforts and outcomes is the essence of metacognition and SRL [5,6] As presented in Table 1, the self-regulated student must continuously reconsider and refine learning goals. As capacities to self-regulate increase, personal learning goals may correspondingly be modified (e.g., from passing to excelling). As goals are fluid, at least to some extent, examination of progress toward those goals must be equally flexible. The self-regulated student revisits instructions for assignment completion and marking criteria to clarify understanding in relation to personal learning and achievement goals. A critical function of the tutor in digital environments is motivating and encouraging the student to exert and maintain learning effort. [31,74] Instructional design supports SRL by inclusion of mechanisms of self-and peer assessment and detailed teacher feedback. Grabe and Sigler [75] provided university students with four web-based study tools: short answer practice test items, multiple choice practice test items, lecture notes, and textbook notes. Students who utilized the tools academically outperformed those who did not. It may come as no surprize that the description of learning, teaching and technology described in Table 1 is generally consistent with sound instructional practice.

Conclusion

Promoting SRL may be aptly conceptualized as exemplary teaching. In effective instructional design, all materials and resources support student completion of the required tasks, demonstration of the required skills and mastery of required content. Given the continuously increasing volume and complexity of required learning in contemporary society, self-regulation is increasingly critical to student success. Overall, the existing empirical literature supports well-established findings from research in traditional classrooms; specifically, that academic self-regulation is important, if not essential, for effective learning and performance in digital environments. [66] Ultimately, those who design and teach in digital environments must first consider and explicitly address the degree to which their learners have the capacity to self-regulate.

References

1. Chen, C. S. Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to information systems course. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 2002, 20(1): 11-25.
2. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 2008, 20(4): 391- 409. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.
3. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. Improving students' helpseeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 2011, 21(2): 267-280.
4. Sitzmann, T., Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K., & Kanar, A. M. A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology, 2009, 62(4): 697- 734.
5. Schneider, W. The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2008, 2(3): 114-121.
6. Stolp, S., & Zabrucky, K. M. Contributions of metacognitive and selfregulated learning theories to investigations of calibration of comprehension. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2009, 2(1): 7-31.
7. Kauffman, D. F. Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2004, 30(1-2): 139-161.
8. Gordon, S. C., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. Do teachers’ own learning behaviors influence their classroom goal orientation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher Education, 2007, 23(1): 36-46.
9. Law, Y. K., Chan, C. K. K., & Sachs, J. Beliefs about learning, self-regulated strategies and text comprehension among Chinese children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2008, 78(1): 51-73.
10. Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and selfregulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2008, 22(2): 72-89.
11. Schunk, D. H. Commentary on selfregulation in school contexts. Learning and Instruction, 2005, 15(2): 173-177.
12. Barak, M. Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2010, 20(4): 381-401.
13. Delfino, M., Dettori, G., & Persico, D. Self-regulated learning in virtual communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2008, 17(3): 195-205.
14. Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M., & Rowe, P. Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 39(3): 486-500.
15. Geddes, D. How am I doing? Exploring on-line gradebook monitoring as a selfregulated learning practice that impacts academic achievement. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2009, 8(4): 494-510.
16. Steffens, K. Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: Lessons of a European Peer review. European Journal of Education, 2006, 41(3-4): 353-379. doi: 10.1111/ ejed.2006.41.issue-3-4/issuetoc.
17. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. Designbased research and technology-enhanced learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 2005, 53(4): 5-23.
18. Artino, A. R. Self-regulated learning in online education: A Review of the Empirical Literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2007, 4(6). Retrieved from https://www.itdl.org/ Journal/Jun_07/article01.htm.
19. Heikkilä, A., & Lonkab, K. Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 2006, 31(1): 99-117.
20. Zimmerman, B. J. Becoming a selfregulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 2002, 41(2): 64-70.
21. Chiou, W., & Wan, C. The dynamic change of self-efficacy in information searching on the Internet: Influence of valence of experience and prior selfefficacy. The Journal of Psychology, 2007, 141(6): 589-603.
22. Darabi, A., Mackal, M., & Nelson, D. Self-regulated learning of performance analysis as a complex cognitive skill: Contributions of an electronic performance support (EPSS). Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 2004, 33(1): 11-27.
23. Miller, T. Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: The effectiveness of feedback in supporting student learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2009, 34(2): 181-192.
24. Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. Enhancing skills of application software via webenabled problem-based learning and self-regulated learning: An exploratory study. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 2008, 6(3): 69- 84.
25. Hareli, S., & Hess, U. The role of causal attribution in hurt feelings and related social emotions elicited in reaction to other's feedback about failure. Cognition and Emotion, 2008, 22(5): 862-880.
26. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: The impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008, 24(4): 1686- 1706. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.001.
27. Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. Beyond grades in online learning: Adaptive profiles of academic self-regulation among naval academy undergraduates. Journal of Advanced Academics, 2009, 20(4): 568-601.
28. Winne, P. Key issues in modelling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology, 2005, 54(2): 232-238.
29. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R.A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 2007, 77(3): 334-372. doi: 10.3102/003465430303953.
30. Nicol, D. Assessment for learner selfregulation: enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2009, 34(3): 335-352.
31. Steffens, K. Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for Self- Regulated Learning: A Framework for Research. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2008, 17(3): 221-232.
32. Yang, Y. Effects of embedded strategies on promoting the use of self-regulated learning strategies in an online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 2006, 34(3): 257-269.
33. Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 2006, 99(4): 218- 230.
34. Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. Enhancing self-regulation of practice: The influence of graphing and selfevaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 2007, 1(3), 201-212.
35. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 2006, 22(3): 389–411.
36. Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 2008, 20: 429-444.
37. Moos, D. C. Self-regulated learning and externally generated feedback with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2011, 44(3): 265- 297.
38. Hung, M-C., Chang, I-C., Hwang, H-G. Exploring academic teachers’ continuance toward the web-based learning system: The role of causal attributions. Computers and Education, 2011, 57(2), 1530-1543.
39. Arenas-Gaitán, J., Ramírez-Correa, P. E., & Rondán-Cataluña, F. J. Cross cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of web based learning systems. Computers and Education, 2011, 57(2): 1762-1774.
40. Suhonen, J., & Sutinen, E. FODEM: Developing digital learning environments in widely dispersed learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 2006, 9(3): 43- 55.
41. Anohina, A. Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2005, 8 (3): 91-102.
42. Ellis, R. K. Field guide to learning management systems, ASTD Learning Circuits, 2009. Retrieved from https://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/12EC DB99-3B91-403E-9B15-7E597444645D /23395/LMS_fieldguide_20091.pdf.
43. Adeyinka, T., & Mutula, S. A proposed model for evaluating the success of WebCT course content management system. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010, 26(6): 1795.
44. Hsu, Y., Ching, Y., Mathews, J. P., & Carr-Chellman, Undergraduate students' self-regulated learning experience in web-based learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2009, 10(2): 109-121.
45. Tsai, M. The model of strategic elearning: understanding and evaluating student e-learning from metacognitive perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2009, 12(1): 34- 48.
46. Kumar Reddy P, Dharma Rao V, Raghuram M, Venkateshwarlu S, Sachin Avanish K, & Jahir Ul Haque Mahamood Ali Khan Desai. Learning Styles Adopted By Medical Post Graduate Students. British Biomedical Bulletin.2014, 2(2): 267-271.
47. Garcia-Valcarcel, A. Integrating ICT into the teaching-learning process. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 41(5): E75-E77. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00988.x.
48. 48. Winne, P. How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 2006, 41(1): 5-17.
49. Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007, 23(3): 1126-1144.
50. Santhanam, R., Sasidharan, S., & Webster, J. Using self-regulatory learning to enhance e-learning-based information technology training. Information Systems Research, 2008, 19 (1): 26-47.
51. Banyard, P., Underwood, J., & Twiner, A. Do enhanced communication technologies inhibit or facilitate selfregulated learning? European Journal of Education, 2006, 41(3-4): 473-489.
52. Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., & Robertson, J. Fostering historical knowledge and thinking skills using hypermedia learning environments: The role of self-regulated learning. Computers and Education, 2010, 54(1): 230-243. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009. 08.006
53. Hu, H., & Gramling, J. Learning strategies for success in a web-based course: A descriptive exploration. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2009, 10(2): 123-134.
54. Trigano, P. Self-regulated learning in a TELE at the Université de Technologie de Compiègne: An analysis from multiple perspectives. European Journal of Education, 2006, 41(3): 381-395.
55. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J., Thomas, L., Seibert, D., & Tron, M. Online process scaffolding and students' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, 2003. Retrieved from https://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED 478070.pdf.
56. Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Greene, J., Winters, F., & Cromley, J. Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 2008, 56(1): 45-72.
57. Kitsantas, A. & Dabbagh, N. The role of web 2.0 technologies in self-regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011, 126: 99-106.
58. Efklides, A. Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 2011, 46(1): 6-25.
59. Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 2011, 137(3): 421-442.
60. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Research, 2006, 99(5): 307-317.
61. Wang, T-H. Developing web-based assessment strategies for facilitating junior high school students to perform self-regulated learning in an e-learning environment. Computers and Education, 2011, 57(2):1801-1812.doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2011.01.003.
62. Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. Selfefficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet selfefficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2000, 48(2): 5-17.
63. Lenne, D., Abel, M., Trigano, P., & Leblanc, A. Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments: An investigation with university students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2008, 17(3): 171-181.
64. Edens, K. M. The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, selfregulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2008, 41(2): 161-177.
65. Lee, S. W-Y., & Tsai, C-C. Students’ perceptions of collaboration, selfregulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011, 27(2): 905-914.
66. Antino, A. R. Promoting academic motivation and self-regulation: Practical guidelines for online instructors. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 2008, 52(3): 37- 45.
67. Johnson, G. M. Cognitive processing differences between frequent and infrequent Internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008, 24: 2094-2106.
68. Lee, T-H., Shen, P-D., & Tsai, C-W. Enhance low-achieving students' learning involvement in Taiwan's higher education: An approach via e-learning with problem-based learning and selfregulated learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 2010, 15(5): 553-565. doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.506999
69. Deed, C., & Edwards, A. Unrestricted student blogging: Implications for active learning in a virtual text-based environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2011, 12(1): 11-21. doi: 10.1177/1469787410387725.
70. Rhine, S., & Bailey, M. Enhancing inclass participation in a web 2.0 world. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Educating Educators with Social Media, 2011, pp 303-325, Bradford, UK: Emerald.
71. Yu, F. Y. Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 2011, 56(2): 484-494. doi: 10.1016/j. compedu.
72. Bower, M. Redesigning a webconferencing environment to scaffold computing students' creative design processes. Educational Technology & Society, 2011, 14(1): 27-42.
73. Luckin, R. The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning. Computers and Education, 2008, 50(2): 449-462. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007. 09.018.
74. Lim, C. P. Formulating guidelines for instructional planning in technology enhanced learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 2009, 20(1): 55-74.
75. Grabe M., & Sigler, E. Studying online: Evaluation of an online study environment. Computers and Education, 2001, 38: 375-383.