Strategic-planning utterances 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... from tutorial; in-depth instruction of particular topics in lectures). Data sources included: 1. Feedback survey that was given to all students toward the end of the course. Most of the survey was comprised of Likert type questions about the usage of specific features of the instructional model and their contribution to student’s learning. One open question at the end of this survey enabled students to write general comments about how they perceived the course. 2. Interviews with 18 selected students from the second and third enactments who were chosen based on their usage of the tutorial (“heavy-users”, “typical-users” and ”none-users”) were asked specifically about their use of the online tutorial and their attitudes towards the instructional model. 3. Server log files that provided us with information regarding the number of times each student accessed each webpage. 4. Test scores , based on 30-40 multiple-choice questions developed and assessed by the course instructors. Students’ utterances in the written comments and the interviews were analyzed using a verbal analysis technique (Chi, 1997), with the categories shown in Table 1. The categories we chose to use as indicators for self-regulated-learning and self-efficacy were those that appeared in more than 10% of utterances. The quantitative data (server logs and test scores) was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The analysis indicates that once the tutorial was introduced (phase-1) its usage was high (server data shows that more than 90% of the students used it at least once). About 50% of the students who filled the surveys in the year that the tutorial was first introduced declared that they use the tutorial often (“for all/most of the course topics”). The usage became even more extensive in phase-2. For example: based on the server data, in phase-1 each student watched, on average, eight different video recordings (out of twenty-eight). In phase-2 the average went up to eighteen – 64% of the video recordings. Students’ satisfaction from the tutorial is evident from the survey results - 78% of the students’ that answered the survey indicated that the tutorial had a large positive impact on their learning process, and 80% of the utterances regarding the tutorial were positive - e.g. “The new website is a great tool for learning”. The interviews revealed the same picture; only one out of seven interviewees that participated in the first phase did not see the online tutorial as a useful tool for learning. One of the interviewees even said “without the site I would have been lost”. It is important to note that no difference was found in the final exam scores in the three semesters. This is an indication for the ability of the students in the second phase, in which they had to learn some of the course topics on their own, to cope with the requirement of self-learning. The analysis of student answers for the survey’s open question showed a rise in three self- regulation indicators ( intrinsic-interest , self-efficacy – mastery-experience and emotional-state ) in phase-1 – with the introduction of the site, and then a drop in phase-2 (Figure 3) when they were required to self-learn some of the course topics which were not covered in the lectures. However, with regards to strategic-planning , there was a gradual decrease throughout the three years of the study (Figure 4). We interpret the rise and drop in Figure 3 using Maslow’s most cited hierarchy of needs theory (1943). Maslow claimed that a person will desire higher-level self-actualization needs (the need for full realization of one's potential) only after the more basic psychological needs (such as personal-security) are fulfilled. Accordingly, we view the rise between the pre-intervention phase, and phase-1 in the three indicators in figure 3 as an indication of a sense of confidence that students felt when all course contents were provided to them both in the form of lectures and in the online tutorial in phase-1 (or in the words of one of the students: “I always prefer to rely more on the lectures. But there is like self confidence ... a good feeling that you can’t miss anything, there is always the website”). Building on Maslow’s theory, we believe that this confidence provided students with an environment in which they felt comfortable enough to expand their self interests. However, in phase-2, when students knew that some of the contents are not covered in lectures, and others, not covered in the online tutorial (the lecturer’s elaborations during lectures), this sense of confidence was shattered. This lowering of students’ confidence brought to a decline in all three indicators, or in Maslow’s terms, students’ psychological resources were directed towards their more basic needs – making sure they learn everything they should know for the test. This depressed their interest in expanding their horizons. Our interpretation of the constant drop in the strategic-planning indicator (Figure 4) is that there is a certain gap between students’ theoretical aspiration to be provided with a variety of learning resources that they will be able to use to expand their knowledge, and their actual desire to be taught via lectures. Thus, in the pre-intervention phase, when students thought about how they would have hypothetically liked to improve the course, they suggested additional learning sources, as one student says: “A video-taped lecture would be helpful. For sure”. However, once additional tools were provided to them in phase-1, and especially when they were required to use them in phase-2, they drew back and avoided the responsibility. It seems that students prefer to keep their comfort zone in a situation in which the instructor has the responsibility for making the entire strategic-planning , as portrayed by one of the students:”Learning from the internet can be an addition, [but] not instead of [what is said in lectures]. The center [al place in which contents are being taught] should be the lectures”. This study shows that indeed, technology can provide students with an environment that encourages self-regulated-learning and supports self-efficacy . However, when using technology to increase students’ responsibility of their own learning, it is imperative to provide them with appropriate supports that will induce a level of comfort and confidence which is critical for self- regulated-learning and self-efficacy to develop. In terms of self-efficacy indicators, we need to provide a supportive environment that ensures a relaxed emotional-state . We believe that the drop in self-efficacy and self-regulation components in the second phase of this study is due to the fact that the transferring of responsibility from the instructor to the learner was not complete. We have evidence showing that students were confused regarding which of the contents they should be learning on their own and were worried about how these contents will be expressed in the final exam. It seems clear, based on Maslow’s theory (1943), that in the second phase students were not provided with enough support to feel confident that they can succeed well in the course even though some of the responsibility has been passed to them. That said, we would like to stress that we are not backing away from our goal to increase students responsibility of their own learning. Rather, we stress the importance of providing them with the appropriate support in doing so. We are currently conducting a third phase of the study, in which, instead of lectures, the instructor meets each week with several groups of students, who present and discuss a specific topic they study together, using an online learning environment that guides them in the collaborative endeavor. Building on the outcomes of the current research, we designed the online learning environment, and the way it is implemented to increase students’ certainty regarding which of the contents they are responsible for learning on their own and to provide them with sufficient support to be able to do so. We believe that although students will be required to take greater responsibility of their learning, they will feel more confidence in doing ...

Context 2

... to skip parts they feel that they already comprehend and repeat others that they don’t. The feedback questions direct the students to additional resources related to each question (a section of the video recording, a page in the textbook, or an interactive visualization). In the first phase of the study, the use of the online tutorial was optional; course meetings were still devoted to lectures, in which all course contents were covered, similarly to the way this course has been taught for many years prior to this study’s intervention. In the second phase, students were required to learn some of the course contents using the online tutorial. This enabled the lecturer to skip some of the details and to go into more depth of the contents and make connections between different concepts and course topics. The purpose of the research was to examine how the gradual shift of responsibility from the instructor to the students affects the self-regulation and self-efficacy of students in three successive course enactments. Specifically, we wanted to explore whether (and to what extent) there will be a change in specific components of self-regulation and self-efficacy , and how these relate with other factors such as students’ attitudes toward the course, and their final grades. A total of 834 freshmen students in biology participated in three semester-long enactments of the introductory biology course between 2008 and 2010: 250 in a pre-intervention stage (one year before the online tutorial was introduced) 320 in phase-1(optional tutorial; regular lectures) and 280 in phase-2 (required self-learning from tutorial; in-depth instruction of particular topics in lectures). Data sources included: 1. Feedback survey that was given to all students toward the end of the course. Most of the survey was comprised of Likert type questions about the usage of specific features of the instructional model and their contribution to student’s learning. One open question at the end of this survey enabled students to write general comments about how they perceived the course. 2. Interviews with 18 selected students from the second and third enactments who were chosen based on their usage of the tutorial (“heavy-users”, “typical-users” and ”none-users”) were asked specifically about their use of the online tutorial and their attitudes towards the instructional model. 3. Server log files that provided us with information regarding the number of times each student accessed each webpage. 4. Test scores , based on 30-40 multiple-choice questions developed and assessed by the course instructors. Students’ utterances in the written comments and the interviews were analyzed using a verbal analysis technique (Chi, 1997), with the categories shown in Table 1. The categories we chose to use as indicators for self-regulated-learning and self-efficacy were those that appeared in more than 10% of utterances. The quantitative data (server logs and test scores) was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The analysis indicates that once the tutorial was introduced (phase-1) its usage was high (server data shows that more than 90% of the students used it at least once). About 50% of the students who filled the surveys in the year that the tutorial was first introduced declared that they use the tutorial often (“for all/most of the course topics”). The usage became even more extensive in phase-2. For example: based on the server data, in phase-1 each student watched, on average, eight different video recordings (out of twenty-eight). In phase-2 the average went up to eighteen – 64% of the video recordings. Students’ satisfaction from the tutorial is evident from the survey results - 78% of the students’ that answered the survey indicated that the tutorial had a large positive impact on their learning process, and 80% of the utterances regarding the tutorial were positive - e.g. “The new website is a great tool for learning”. The interviews revealed the same picture; only one out of seven interviewees that participated in the first phase did not see the online tutorial as a useful tool for learning. One of the interviewees even said “without the site I would have been lost”. It is important to note that no difference was found in the final exam scores in the three semesters. This is an indication for the ability of the students in the second phase, in which they had to learn some of the course topics on their own, to cope with the requirement of self-learning. The analysis of student answers for the survey’s open question showed a rise in three self- regulation indicators ( intrinsic-interest , self-efficacy – mastery-experience and emotional-state ) in phase-1 – with the introduction of the site, and then a drop in phase-2 (Figure 3) when they were required to self-learn some of the course topics which were not covered in the lectures. However, with regards to strategic-planning , there was a gradual decrease throughout the three years of the study (Figure 4). We interpret the rise and drop in Figure 3 using Maslow’s most cited hierarchy of needs theory (1943). Maslow claimed that a person will desire higher-level self-actualization needs (the need for full realization of one's potential) only after the more basic psychological needs (such as personal-security) are fulfilled. Accordingly, we view the rise between the pre-intervention phase, and phase-1 in the three indicators in figure 3 as an indication of a sense of confidence that students felt when all course contents were provided to them both in the form of lectures and in the online tutorial in phase-1 (or in the words of one of the students: “I always prefer to rely more on the lectures. But there is like self confidence ... a good feeling that you can’t miss anything, there is always the website”). Building on Maslow’s theory, we believe that this confidence provided students with an environment in which they felt comfortable enough to expand their self interests. However, in phase-2, when students knew that some of the contents are not covered in lectures, and others, not covered in the online tutorial (the lecturer’s elaborations during lectures), this sense of confidence was shattered. This lowering of students’ confidence brought to a decline in all three indicators, or in Maslow’s terms, students’ psychological resources were directed towards their more basic needs – making sure they learn everything they should know for the test. This depressed their interest in expanding their horizons. Our interpretation of the constant drop in the strategic-planning indicator (Figure 4) is that there is a certain gap between students’ theoretical aspiration to be provided with a variety of learning resources that they will be able to use to expand their knowledge, and their actual desire to be taught via lectures. Thus, in the pre-intervention phase, when students thought about how they would have hypothetically liked to improve the course, they suggested additional learning sources, as one student says: “A video-taped lecture would be helpful. For sure”. However, once additional tools were provided to them in phase-1, and especially when they were required to use them in phase-2, they drew back and avoided the responsibility. It seems that students prefer to keep their comfort zone in a situation in which the instructor has the responsibility for making the entire strategic-planning , as portrayed by one of the students:”Learning from the internet can be an addition, [but] not instead of [what is said in lectures]. The center [al place in which contents are being taught] should be the lectures”. This study shows that indeed, technology can provide students with an environment that encourages self-regulated-learning and supports self-efficacy . However, when using technology to increase students’ responsibility of their own learning, it is imperative to provide them with appropriate supports that will induce a level of comfort and confidence which is critical for self- regulated-learning and self-efficacy to develop. In terms of self-efficacy indicators, we need to provide a supportive environment that ensures a relaxed emotional-state . We believe that the drop in self-efficacy and self-regulation components in the second phase of this study is due to the fact that the transferring of responsibility from the instructor to the learner was not complete. We have evidence showing that students were confused regarding which of the contents they should be learning on their own and were worried about how these contents will be expressed in the final exam. It seems clear, based on Maslow’s theory (1943), that in the second phase students were not provided with enough support to feel confident that they can succeed well in the course even though some of the responsibility has been passed to them. That said, we would like to stress that we are not backing away from our goal to increase students responsibility of their own learning. Rather, we stress the importance of providing them with the appropriate support in doing so. We are currently conducting a third phase of the study, in which, instead of lectures, the instructor meets each week with several groups of students, who present and discuss a specific topic they study together, using an online learning environment that guides them in the collaborative endeavor. Building on the outcomes of the current research, we designed the online learning environment, and the way it is implemented to increase students’ certainty regarding which of the contents they are responsible for learning on their own and to provide them with sufficient support to be able to do so. We believe that although students will be required to take greater responsibility of their learning, they will feel more confidence in doing ...