Procrastination, prompts, and preferences: Evidence from daily records of self-directed learning activities

Nudging Learning Behaviour: A Systematic Review

“…Of which, ten studies were selected in this review after the screening. The ten studies covered diverse areas (setting and problem) that included evaluating the effects of self-directed scheduling (Baker et al, 2016), improving cooperative learning (Buchs et al, 2016), enhancing learning experiences and outcomes (Dart & Spratt, 2020), reducing procrastination in a competitive learning environment (Li et al, 2021), informing on imminent submission deadlines (Motz et al, 2021), persuading students to improve their study consistency (O'Connell & Lang, 2018), evaluating the impact on procrastination (Onji & Kikuchi, 2011), improving the enrolment rate of tutoring services (Pugatch & Wilson, 2018), evaluating the impact of learning outcome (Sinha et al, 2021), and improving task performance (Smith et al, 2018). These ten included studies were published between 2011 to 2021 across six different countries.…”

“…Nine studies reported positive results in improving students' academic performances, learning outcomes and experiences (Buchs et al, 2016;Dart & Spratt, 2020;Li et al, 2021;Motz et al, 2021;O'Connell & Lang, 2018;Onji & Kikuchi, 2011;Pugatch & Wilson, 2018;Sinha et al, 2021;Smith et al, 2018). However, students' characteristics such as gender and contextual variables in the area of prior academic performances and behaviour (Li et al, 2021), the timing of interventions (O'Connell & Lang, 2018;Onji & Kikuchi, 2011), and the presented information exposed to students (Motz et al, 2021), were factors affecting the degree of nudge effectiveness. Meanwhile, the tenth study reported no effect on near-term engagement and a weak significant negative impact on long-term engagement, persistence, and performance (Baker et al, 2016).…”

“…Five studies fulfilled all the MMAT criteria (Dart & Spratt, 2020;Li et al, 2021;O'Connell & Lang, 2018;Pugatch & Wilson, 2018;Smith et al, 2018). Another four were unable to fulfil the randomisation criteria (MMAT 2.1) in the quantitative RCT category as the studies did not specify how the randomisation schedule were generated (Baker et al, 2016;Buchs et al, 2016;Motz et al, 2021;Sinha et al, 2021), and one did not account for the confounders (MMAT 3.4) in the quantitative non-randomised category (Onji & Kikuchi, 2011).…”

Impacts of an Information and Communication Technology-Assisted Program on Attitudes and English Communication Abilities: An Experiment in a Japanese High School

“…Table 2 presents the basic characteristics of students that could potentially influence the take-up rate and effects of the online program. As the literature finds that a lack of self-control, including procrastination, can result in poor test performance or low grades (e.g., Golsteyn, Grönqvist, and Lindahl 2014;Onji and Kikuchi 2011), we constructed an index of procrastination as a control variable based on the six questions to rate students' perception of themselves, taken from Osaka University (2013) and Honda and Nishijima (2007). The questions (originally written in Japanese and translated by the authors) included items such as "Are you a person who postpones plans even when you make them?"…”

Nudging through Technology: Choice Architectures and the Mobile Information Revolution

“…It therefore relies largely on choice-architecture in an attempt to signpost ethical and rational routes through important decisions [7]. It has been widely applied in domains such as health [8], agriculture [9], education [10], transport and climate change [11]. It is possible that it can often be considered empirical in application, leading to the opinion that research is needed to establish causality and probability links between nudge and achieved behaviour change [12].…”