2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can the use of cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies be predicted by learners’ levels of prior knowledge in hypermedia-learning environments?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
68
3
16

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 113 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
68
3
16
Order By: Relevance
“…One such important variable is background topic knowledge (e.g., Coiro, 2011). We could expect that, given a similar percentage of relevant pages visited, students with high background knowledge may fill in the existing gaps in their response, while students with low background knowledge may have difficulties overcoming an incomplete response generated through their navigation (cf., Taub, Azevedo, Bouchet, & Khosravifar, 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One such important variable is background topic knowledge (e.g., Coiro, 2011). We could expect that, given a similar percentage of relevant pages visited, students with high background knowledge may fill in the existing gaps in their response, while students with low background knowledge may have difficulties overcoming an incomplete response generated through their navigation (cf., Taub, Azevedo, Bouchet, & Khosravifar, 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Arroyo and colleagues (2013) found that female learners had higher learning gains when they interacted with a female Pedagogical Agent (PA). Learners' prior knowledge was also found to influence the number of metacognitive strategies they used while interacting with an ALT promoting self-regulation (Taub et al 2014). Research by Harley and colleagues (2016b) further shows that personality and trait emotions influence students' emotions toward specific pedagogical agents.…”
Section: Proactive Approachesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…La tabla 1 da cuenta del análisis realizado, cuyos datos se han organizado en función del nivel educativo en el que se han desarrollado los estudios: Moos, & Bonde, 2016;Schoor, & Bannert, 2012;Scott, & Schwartz, 2007;Taub, Azevedo, Bouchet, & Khosravifar, 2014;Yeh, & Yang, 2011 La gran diversidad de diseños hipermedia -desde los más sencillos, basados en la navegación web (Bannert, Sonnenberg, Mengelkamp, & Pieger, 2015) o enciclopedias hypermedia (Binbasaran Tuysuzoglu, & Greene, 2015), a los ambientes de aprendizaje más sofisticados que integran multitude de herramientas de aprendizaje (Taub, Azevedo, Bouchet, & Khosravifar, 2014), sumada a la variedad de instrumentos de investigación -desde autoinformes (Greene, Bolick, & Robertson, 2010), pasando por test estandarizados (Molenaar, Sleegers, & van Boxtel, 2014) a protocolos "think aloud" (Moos, 2014) y log de interacción (FeyziBehnagh et al 2014) trae consigo la necesidad de acotar la exposición de nuestros resultados. Así, hemos optado por analizar en mayor profundidad un número limitado de experiencias, seleccionando dos por cada nivel educativo en base a que bien fueran objeto de dos o más artículos de la presente revision, bien por su carácter innovador en la etapa.…”
Section: Resultsunclassified