Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 123–159 | Cite as

A developmental study on a SPAT design model for mobile learning

  • Soyoung ParkEmail author
Development Article

Abstract

This paper explores another format for mobile learning (mLearning) content consisting of Still Pictures, Audio, and Text (SPAT; Rha, Instructional contents delivery through SPAT format in mobile environment: introduction to gglearn system, Global Knowledge Alliance International Forum, 2015) by considering a variety of mLearning needs. SPAT-based content is deemed to have potential for mLearning because the SPAT format can provide mobile content scenes individually, where each scene is an integration of independent still pictures, audio, and textual elements. This study aims to (1) expand the scope of mLearning materials from streaming video to SPAT and (2) develop a design model for SPAT-based mLearning content. An initial model was constructed based on a literature review and experiential data collection, from which essential processes and principles were derived. Then, the model was revised and refined by iterating the model between the researcher and the instructional designers. The resulting SPAT design model consists of two parts: a design process and design principles along with related guidelines for each principle. The model is expected to enhance effective and efficient learning and to systematically and comprehensively guide instructional design.

Keywords

SPAT design Design model Design principle Mobile learning Integration of still picture, audio and text 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation and I would like to thank professor IlJu Rha at Seoul National University for introducing the concept of “SPAT” to me and fully supporting my research. I also thank the anonymous reviewers whose insightful and supportive comments greatly contributed to improving the earlier version of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) (2004). Sharable content object reference model (SCORM): Overview (2nd ed.). Retrieved January 1, 2006, from http://cisit.sfcc.edu/~cat/SCORM_2004_Overview.pdf.
  2. Balatsoukas, P., Morris, A., & O’Brien, A. (2008). Learning objects update: Review and critical approach to content aggregation. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 119–130.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. In An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  4. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12(5), 456–480.Google Scholar
  5. Borling, J. E. (1981). The effects of sedative music on alpha rhythms and focused attention in high-creative and low-creative subjects. Journal of Music Therapy, 18(2), 101–108.Google Scholar
  6. Brewster, S. (2002). Overcoming the lack of screen space on mobile computers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(3), 188–205.Google Scholar
  7. Bruck, P. A., Motiwalla, L., & Foerster, F. (2012). Mobile learning with micro-content: A framework and evaluation. In Bled eConference, 25.Google Scholar
  8. Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Byun, H. (2011). The development of visual narrative design principles for learning procedural tasks. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, J. M. & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Case studies as minimalist information designs. In Proceedings of HICSS 38: Hawaii international conference on systems science, Hilton Waikoloa Village, January 3–6. IEEE Digital Library.Google Scholar
  11. Catrambone, R., & Seay, A. F. (2002). Using animation to help students learn computer algorithms. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44(3), 495–511.Google Scholar
  12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.Google Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cho, Y. H., Yim, S. Y., & Paik, S. (2015). Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service teachers. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 70–77.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning. In Designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 15–24.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J. D. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(2), 257–271.Google Scholar
  18. Crease, M., & Brewster, S. A. (1998). Making progress with sounds—The design and evaluation of an audio progress bar. In Proceedings of ICAD’98, Glasgow, UK. British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194–197.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.Google Scholar
  21. De Beaugrande, R. D. R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman Paperback.Google Scholar
  22. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113–140.Google Scholar
  23. Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Textual display techniques. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (Vol. 2, pp. 167–191). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Dunn, P. D. (1979). Appropriate technology. Technology with a human face. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  25. Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning: A handbook for the effective selection, design, and use of visualized materials. State College, PA: Learning Services.Google Scholar
  26. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X. L., Zurek, S., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.Google Scholar
  27. Glenn, J. C., Gordon, T. J., & Florescu, E. (2013). 14 State of the future. The millennium project. Washington, DC: World Federation of UN Associations.Google Scholar
  28. Golding, J. M., & Fowler, S. B. (1992). The limited facilitative effect of typographical signals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(2), 99–113.Google Scholar
  29. Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Introduction to perception. In J. Hague & J. Perkins (Eds.), Sensation and perception (8th ed., pp. 3-22). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  30. Gram, C., & Cockton, G. (1996). Design principles for interactive software. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Han, A. (2006). Design and utilization of the visual organizers in web-based learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  32. Harteis, C., Gruber, H., & Hertramph, H. (2010). How epistemic beliefs influence e-learning in daily work-life. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 13(3), 201–211.Google Scholar
  33. Hartley, R. N. (1970). Effects of list types and cues on the learning of word lists. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 97–121.Google Scholar
  34. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713–729.Google Scholar
  35. Hayhoe, G. F. (2001). From desktop to palmtop: Creating usable online documents for wireless and handheld devices. In Proceedings of IEEE international professional communication conference, 2001. IPCC 2001 (pp. 1–11). IEEE.Google Scholar
  36. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343–351.Google Scholar
  37. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 209–249.Google Scholar
  38. Hegstad, C. D. (2002). Development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring programs in fortune 500 companies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  39. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2005). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Hong, J. (2011). The concept and the history of appropriate technology. Science Technology Policy, 183, 51–57.Google Scholar
  41. Jones, M. K. (1988). Human computer interaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.Google Scholar
  43. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 558–588.Google Scholar
  44. Keum, S. (2017). Segmentation strategies for SPAT format learning materials in mobile learning. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  45. Kim, S. (2006). A study on the text reduction in e-learning environment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  46. Kim, T. H. (2012). Development of sound design strategies for facilitating self-regulated behaviors in mobile learning environment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  47. Kim, D., & Gilman, D. A. (2008). Effects of text, audio, and graphic aids in multimedia instruction for vocabulary learning. Educational Technology and Society, 11(3), 114–126.Google Scholar
  48. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–395.Google Scholar
  49. Koroghlanian, C., & Klein, J. (2004). The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 23–46.Google Scholar
  50. Lee, J. (2012). Development of a visual summarizer design model for digital learning. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  51. Lee, H. (2015). A theoretical discussion for e-text communication in learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 317–331.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, S. H., & Boling, E. (1999). Screen design guidelines for motivation in interactive multimedia instruction: A survey and framework for designers. Educational Technology, 39(3), 19–26.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, H., & Choi, H. (2011). New perspectives of non-verbal text in online learning environments: Beyond Ong’s orality and literacy. Asia–Pacific Education Review, 11(4), 167–188.Google Scholar
  54. Lee, H., & Hong, Y. (2011). Instructional implications of orality and literacy: A case of high-achievers’ note-taking strategies. Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 675–700.Google Scholar
  55. Lee, J., & Jang, S. (2014). A methodological framework for instructional design model development: Critical dimensions and synthesized procedures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 743–765.Google Scholar
  56. Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 427–453.Google Scholar
  57. Lim, C., Song, H. D., & Lee, Y. (2012). Improving the usability of the user interface for a digital textbook platform for elementary-school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 159–173.Google Scholar
  58. Lin, H., & Dwyer, F. M. (2010). The effect of static and animated visualization: A perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 155–174.Google Scholar
  59. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Pugzles Lorch, E., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1995). Effects of typographical cues on reading and recall of text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(1), 51–64.Google Scholar
  60. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–386.Google Scholar
  61. Marcus, A. (1995). Principles of effective visual communication for graphical user-interface design. In R. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in human–computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 425–441). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  62. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377–389.Google Scholar
  63. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  67. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.Google Scholar
  68. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.Google Scholar
  69. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397.Google Scholar
  70. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.Google Scholar
  71. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.Google Scholar
  72. Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 171–185.Google Scholar
  73. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638–643.Google Scholar
  74. McCloud, S. (2004). The vocabulary of comics. In Visual rhetoric in a digital world (pp. 195–208). Bedford: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  75. Meadows, D. (2003). Digital storytelling: Research-based practice in new media. Visual Communication, 2(2), 189–193.Google Scholar
  76. Miller, R. B. (1968). Response times in man–computer conversational transactions. In AFIPS conference proceedings. Proceedings of the fall joint computer conference, Washington, DC, December 1968 (Vol. 33, Part 1, pp. 267–277). Washington, DC: Thompson Books.Google Scholar
  77. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.Google Scholar
  78. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.Google Scholar
  79. Morris, S. A., Yen, G., Wu, Z., & Asnake, B. (2003). Time line visualization of research fronts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 413–422.Google Scholar
  80. Mountford, S. J., & Gaver, W. (1990). In B. Laurel (Ed.), Talking and listening to computers. The art of human–computer interface design (pp. 319–334). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  81. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319.Google Scholar
  82. Olsafsky, B. L. (2006). Rethinking learner-centered instructional design in the context of “No child left behind”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  83. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  84. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Park, Y. (2016). Learning and utilization patterns of two digital content delivery methods: Comparison between the streaming video and the SPAT format. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  86. Park, Y., Kim, M., Keum, S., & Sung, G. (2017). Analysis of learners’ perception on the SPAT format as a delivery method in mobile learning. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 11(1), 127–131.Google Scholar
  87. Park, S., & Rha, I. (2018). Effect of mobile SPAT on learning. In Proceedings of the IAFOR (International Academic Forum) conference on education, Dubai, UAE, February 16–18, 2018.Google Scholar
  88. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86.Google Scholar
  89. Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital information, 3(4). https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/89.
  90. Purnell, K. N., Solman, R. T., & Sweller, J. (1991). The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science, 20(5–6), 443–462.Google Scholar
  91. Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002, April). A case study to distill structural scaffolding guidelines for scaffolded software environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 81–88). ACM.Google Scholar
  92. Rainger, P. (2005). Accessibility and mobile learning. In A. Kukulska-Hulm & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 57–69). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  93. Rao, S. S. (2003). Electronic books: A review and evaluation. Library Hi Tech, 21(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
  94. Reed, S. (2006). Cognition: Theory and application (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  95. Rha, I. (2015). Instructional contents delivery through SPAT format in mobile environment: Introduction to gglearn system. Global Knowledge Alliance International Forum. http://www.slideshare.net/iljurha/instructional-contents-delivery-through-spat-format-in-mobile-introduction-to-lib-study-system (resource website: www.slideshare.com and www.gglearn.com.
  96. Rha, I., & Jung, I. (1990). Development and utilization of CAI (computer-assisted instruction). Seoul: Kyouookbook.Google Scholar
  97. Rha, I., Park, H., Lee. S., & Choi, H. (2012). Image used in symbolic word memorization: Effects of content-relevancy and presentation style. In KSET international conference. Seoul: Korea University.Google Scholar
  98. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220–228.Google Scholar
  100. Robin, B. R. (2015). The effective uses of digital storytelling as a teaching and learning tool. Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Arts, 2, 429–440.Google Scholar
  101. Rubinstein, R., & Hersh, H. M. (1984). The human factor: Designing computer systems for people. Burlington, MA: Digital Press.Google Scholar
  102. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487–506.Google Scholar
  103. Sano, D., & Mullet, K. (1995). Designing visual interfaces: Communication oriented techniques. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.Google Scholar
  104. Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47–58.Google Scholar
  105. Schwartz, D., & Heiser, J. (2005). Spatial representation and imagery in learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 283–298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Seybold, J. (1981). Xerex’s ‘Star’. The Seybold Report, 10(16), 2–18.Google Scholar
  107. Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, T. Y. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of a learning activity supported by a mobile multimedia learning system to enhance autonomous EFL learning in authentic contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  108. Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education, 34(3–4), 177–193.Google Scholar
  109. Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 501–521). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. In Proceedings of mLearn (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  111. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 87–99). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  112. Shneiderman, B. (1980). Human factors in computer and information systems. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  113. Smilie, R. J. (1985). Design strategies for job performance aids. In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 213–243). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  114. Smith, D. C., Irby, C., Kimball, R., Verplank, B., & Harslem, E. (1982). Designing the star user interface. Byte(4) pp. 242–282.Google Scholar
  115. Sun, G., Cui, T., Yong, J., Shen, J., & Chen, S. (2015). MLaaS: A cloud-based system for delivering adaptive micro learning in mobile MOOC learning. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 11(2), 291–305.Google Scholar
  116. Sung. (2009). Development and validation of the principles on visual representation of digital text structure for e-learning content. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  117. Tracey, M. W. (2001). The construction and validation of an instructional systems design model incorporating multiple intelligences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  118. Trifonova, A. (2003). Mobile learning—Review of the literature. Technical Report # DIT-03-009. University of Treno.Google Scholar
  119. Trollip, S. R., & Alessi, S. M. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  120. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.Google Scholar
  121. Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2012). Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, human cognition and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 561–575.Google Scholar
  122. Weyer, S. A. (1982). Searching for information in a dynamic book. Report No. SCG-82-1. Palo Alto, CA: XEROX Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  123. Wileman, R. E. (1980). Exercises in visual thinking. Winter Park, FL: Hastings House Publishers.Google Scholar
  124. Wileman, R. E. (1993). Visual communicating. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  125. Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects (Vol. 1). Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology.Google Scholar
  126. York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 841–863.Google Scholar
  127. Zhang, J., & Wolfram, D. (2001). Visualization of term discrimination analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 615–627.Google Scholar
  128. Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations