Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learners’ perceptions and illusions of adaptivity in computer-based learning environments

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on computer-based adaptive learning environments has shown exemplary growth. Although the mechanisms of effective adaptive instruction are unraveled systematically, little is known about the relative effect of learners’ perceptions of adaptivity in adaptive learning environments. As previous research has demonstrated that the learners’ view towards a learning environment strongly influences their learning outcomes and learning process, it can be discussed whether program-defined adaptivity is not only effective because of the underlying learner models, but also because the adaptivity is perceived and experienced as such by the learners. In this study, we apply the cognitive mediational paradigm and hypothesize that perceptions of adaptivity mediate the relation between adaptive instruction and learners’ motivations and learning outcomes. The results do not fully support the claim of the cognitive mediational paradigm. Both adaptivity and perceptions were related to motivation, but learners’ perceptions did not act as a mediating variable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One participant did not answer one item.

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, C. R., & Lee, H. (2005) Creating a pedagogical model that uses student self reports of motivation and mood to adapt ITS instruction. In Workshop on motivation and affect in educational software, at AIED2005. 12th international conference on artificial intelligence in education, Amsterdam, pp 39–46.

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory. Science Education, 84, 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (2007). Adaptive navigation support. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), The adaptive web (pp. 263–290). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P., & Millán, E. (2007). User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), The adaptive web (pp. 3–53). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009). Combining shared control with variability over surface features: Effects on transfer test performance and task involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 290–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dror, I. E. (2008). Technology enhanced learning: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16, 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J. (2000). Technologie voor en van het onderwijs. Een inleiding in onderwijstechnologische inzichten en realisaties [Technology for and of education. An introduction in educational technology insights and realisations]. Leuven: ACCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2006). The use of instructional interventions: Lean learning environments as a solution for a design problem. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environments: Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, W., & Reiser, R. A. (2000). The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on performance and motivation in computer-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 247–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federico, P.-A. (1999). Hypermedia environments and adaptive instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 653–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Baron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., & Hesse, F. W. (2004). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learning activities and of students’ conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 445–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., & King, B. G. (2008). Computer-mediated technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 211–224). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadiyala, M., & Crynes, B. L. (1998). Where’s the proof? A review of literature on effectiveness of information technology in education. In 28th annual frontiers in education (FIE’98), Tempe, USA, pp. 33–37.

  • Kalyuga, S. (2008). Implications of expertise reversal effect for adaptive multimedia learning. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2008 (pp. 4167–4174). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Kay, J. (2001). Learner control. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design and instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Könings, K., & Kirschner, P. (2010, August). Students’ expectations and perceptions on instruction: The role of students’ behavior. Paper presented at the SIG 6&7 meeting of the European association for research on learning and instruction, Ülm, Germany.

  • Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2004). Instructional conceptions: Analysis from an instructional design perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luyten, L., Lowyck, J., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2001). Task perception as mediating variable: A contribution to the validation of instructional knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1984). The cognitive mediational paradigm for research on counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 558–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merril, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrovic, A., Koedinger, K. R., & Martin, B. (2003). A comparative analysis of cognitive tutoring and constraint-based modeling. in Proceedings of the ninth international conference on user modeling UM 2003 (pp. 313–322). New York: Springer.

  • Perkins, D. N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally-controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53, 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuell, T. J., & Farber, S. L. (2001). Students’ perceptions of technology use in college courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2008). Adaptive technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 277–294). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2008). Students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 11, 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2000). Computer-based assessment: A versatile educational tool. Computers & Education, 34, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmers, C., & Veldkamp, B. (2011). Attention paid to feedback by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Computers & Education, 56, 923–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandewaetere, M., Desmet, P., & Clarebout, G. (2011). The value of learner characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 118–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (1987). Why process-product research cannot explain process-product finding and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, F., Greene, J., & Costich, C. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. iTEC, Interdisciplinary Research on Technology, Communication and Education, K.U. Leuven—Kulak, E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium

    Mieke Vandewaetere, Sylke Vandercruysse & Geraldine Clarebout

  2. C.I.P.&T., Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, K.U. Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Mieke Vandewaetere, Sylke Vandercruysse & Geraldine Clarebout

Authors
  1. Mieke Vandewaetere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sylke Vandercruysse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geraldine Clarebout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mieke Vandewaetere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vandewaetere, M., Vandercruysse, S. & Clarebout, G. Learners’ perceptions and illusions of adaptivity in computer-based learning environments. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 307–324 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9225-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9225-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation