Intense, turbulent, or wallowing in the mire: A longitudinal study of cross-course online tactics, strategies, and trajectories

IF 6.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Mohammed Saqr , Sonsoles López-Pernas , Jelena Jovanović , Dragan Gašević
{"title":"Intense, turbulent, or wallowing in the mire: A longitudinal study of cross-course online tactics, strategies, and trajectories","authors":"Mohammed Saqr ,&nbsp;Sonsoles López-Pernas ,&nbsp;Jelena Jovanović ,&nbsp;Dragan Gašević","doi":"10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research has repeatedly demonstrated that students with effective learning strategies are more likely to have better academic achievement. Existing research has mostly focused on a single course or two, while longitudinal studies remain scarce. The present study examines the longitudinal sequence of students' strategies, their succession, consistency, temporal unfolding, and whether students tend to retain or adapt strategies between courses. We use a large dataset of online traces from 135 students who completed 10 successive courses (i.e., 1350 course enrollments) in a higher education program. The methods used in this study have shown the feasibility of using trace data recorded by learning management systems to unobtrusively trace and model the longitudinal learning strategies across a program. We identified three program-level strategy trajectories: a stable and intense trajectory related to deep learning where students used diverse strategies and scored the highest grades; a fluctuating interactive trajectory, where students focused on course requirements, scored average grades, and were relatively fluctuating; and a light trajectory related to surface learning where students invested the least effort, scored the lowest grades, and had a relatively stable pathway. Students who were intensely active were more likely to transfer the intense strategies and therefore, they were expected to require less support or guidance. Students focusing on course requirements were not as effective self-regulators as they seemed and possibly required early guidance and support from teachers. Students with consistent light strategies or low effort needed proactive guidance and support.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48186,"journal":{"name":"Internet and Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet and Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751622000586","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that students with effective learning strategies are more likely to have better academic achievement. Existing research has mostly focused on a single course or two, while longitudinal studies remain scarce. The present study examines the longitudinal sequence of students' strategies, their succession, consistency, temporal unfolding, and whether students tend to retain or adapt strategies between courses. We use a large dataset of online traces from 135 students who completed 10 successive courses (i.e., 1350 course enrollments) in a higher education program. The methods used in this study have shown the feasibility of using trace data recorded by learning management systems to unobtrusively trace and model the longitudinal learning strategies across a program. We identified three program-level strategy trajectories: a stable and intense trajectory related to deep learning where students used diverse strategies and scored the highest grades; a fluctuating interactive trajectory, where students focused on course requirements, scored average grades, and were relatively fluctuating; and a light trajectory related to surface learning where students invested the least effort, scored the lowest grades, and had a relatively stable pathway. Students who were intensely active were more likely to transfer the intense strategies and therefore, they were expected to require less support or guidance. Students focusing on course requirements were not as effective self-regulators as they seemed and possibly required early guidance and support from teachers. Students with consistent light strategies or low effort needed proactive guidance and support.

激烈、动荡或深陷泥潭:跨课程在线战术、策略和轨迹的纵向研究
研究一再表明,具有有效学习策略的学生更有可能取得更好的学业成绩。现有的研究大多集中在一两门课程上,而纵向研究仍然很少。本研究考察了学生策略的纵向顺序、它们的连续性、一致性、时间展开,以及学生在课程之间是否倾向于保留或适应策略。我们使用了一个大型在线跟踪数据集,来自135名在高等教育项目中连续完成10门课程(即1350门课程注册)的学生。本研究中使用的方法表明,使用学习管理系统记录的跟踪数据来不引人注目地跟踪和建模整个项目的纵向学习策略是可行的。我们确定了三个项目级的策略轨迹:一个与深度学习相关的稳定而激烈的轨迹,学生使用不同的策略并获得最高成绩;波动的互动轨迹,学生专注于课程要求,成绩平均,相对波动;以及与表面学习相关的轻度轨迹,学生投入的精力最少,成绩最低,路径相对稳定。高度活跃的学生更有可能转移紧张的策略,因此,他们需要的支持或指导更少。专注于课程要求的学生并不像看上去那样有效地自我调节,可能需要老师的早期指导和支持。具有一贯的轻度策略或低努力的学生需要积极主动的指导和支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internet and Higher Education
Internet and Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.30
自引率
4.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: The Internet and Higher Education is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal focused on contemporary issues and future trends in online learning, teaching, and administration within post-secondary education. It welcomes contributions from diverse academic disciplines worldwide and provides a platform for theory papers, research studies, critical essays, editorials, reviews, case studies, and social commentary.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信