Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Support Device Usage

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Abstract

Learning environments typically confront learners with a number of support devices. These support devices aim at helping learners in their learning; they provide a learning opportunity. As suggested by Perkins (Educational Researcher 14:11–17, 1985), it can be assumed that in order for these support devices to be beneficial (1) the opportunity has to be there, i.e., the support device has to be functional; (2) the learners have to recognize this opportunity, and (3) the learners have to be motivated to use the opportunity or the support device.

Given that the use of the devices may strongly affect the effectiveness of learning environments and that usage seems to be problematic (Clarebout & Elen, Computers in Human Behavior 22:389–411, 2006), usage is a key issue for instructional design. This chapter reviews recent research on the impact of different learner variables on support device usage. First the functionalities and categorization of support devices is discussed, followed by an overview of different learner variables and their effect on support device usage. Next, the interactions between these learner variables and specific support device characteristics are discussed. In conclusion current issues with respect to research on support device usage are discussed and possible solutions to encourage support device usage are introduced.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73, 277–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbreton, A. (1998). Student goal orientation and help-seeking strategy use. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 95–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bera, S., & Liu, M. (2006). Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 295–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C., Davidson, G., & Williams, M. (1985). The selection of instructional options in a computer-based co-ordinate concept lesson. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33, 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies with learner-controlled CALL. Calico Journal, 7(2), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2008). Tool use in open learning environments: In search of learner-related determinants. Learning Environments Research, 11(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009). The complexity of tool use in computer-based learning environments. Instructional Science, 37(5), 475–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Elen, J., & Schnotz, W. (2010). Compensation mechanisms when interacting with learning aids. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Schnotz, W., & Elen, J. (2010). The relation between self-regulation and the embedding of support devices in learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 573–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Clark, R. E. (1990). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathentics. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), European research in an international context: Learning and instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 1–22). Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results. A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 392–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2006). The use of instructional interventions: Learn 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). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Louw, L. P. (2006). The instructional functionality of multiple adjunct aids. E-journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., Lowyck, J., & Proost, K. (1996). Design of telematic learning environments: A cognitive mediational view. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elshout, J. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Van Hall, J. G. (1993). Using the computer as a help tool during learning by doing. Computers in Education, 21(1–2), 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Troendle, P., & Mandl, H. (2003). Using the internet to improve university education: Problem-oriented web-based learning with MUNICS. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(3), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, H., Kop, R., & Sitlia, H. (2011, March). The value of learning analytics to networked learning on a personal environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Banff, Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gräsel, C., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2001). The use of additional information in problem-oriented learning environments. Learning Environment Research, 3, 287–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007, April). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the development of sophisticated mental models. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horz, H., Winter, C., & Fries, S. (2009). Differential benefits of situated instructional prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 818–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins, S. L., & van Hooff, J. C. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huet, N., Escribe, C., Dupeyrat, C., & Sakdavong, J.-C. (2011). The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of online help on its actual use in an interactive learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 413–420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iiyoshi, T., & Hannafin, M. J. (1998, April). Cognitive tools for open-ended learning environments: Theoretical and implementation perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, L., & Elen, J. (2011). Why do learning goals (not) work: A reexamination of the hypothesized effectiveness of learning goals based on students’ behaviour and cognitive processes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 553–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, L., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2009). The relationship between learner variables, tool-usage behavior and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 501–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1985). The technology of text. Volume 2: Principles for structuring, designing and displaying text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. B., & Lehamn, J. D. (1993). Instructional cueing in hypermedia: A study with active and passive learners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2, 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers in Education, 49, 1066–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Horton, L. R., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., Bogard, T., Kim, J., et al. (2009). Students’ problem solving as mediated by their cognitive tool use: A study of tool use patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2004). Instructional conceptions: Analysis from an instructional design perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lust, G., Vandewaetere, M., Ceulemans, E., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Tool-use in a blended undergraduate course: In search of user profiles. Computers in Education, 57(3), 2135–2144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 795–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marek, P., Griggs, R. A., & Christopher, A. N. (1999). Pedagogical aids in textbooks: Do students’ perceptions justify their prevalence? Teaching of Psychology, 26, 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens, R. L., Valcke, M., & Portier, S. J. (1997). Interactive learning environments to support independent learning: The impact of discernability of embedded support devices. Computers in Education, 28, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of the current status (pp. 279–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, R. (1998). Adaptive help seeking: A role of social interaction in self-regulated learning. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 13–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutta, J. W. (2001). Course web sites: are they worth the effort? NEA Higher Education Advocate, 18(3), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Portier, S., & van Buuren, H. A. (1995). An interactive learning environment (ILE) to study statistics: Effects of prior knowledge on the use of embedded support devices. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5(2), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 529–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey, G. D., & Buchwald, F. (2011). The expertise reversal effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, D. W. (1986). Does research support the use of purpose questions on reading-comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23(1), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the classroom: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “though”. The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarfo, F. K., & Elen, J. (2007). The moderating effect of instructional conceptions on the effect of powerful learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(2), 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J., & Brush, T. A. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., Picard, E., & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners use text and graphics? Learning and Instruction, 3, 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tella, A., Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O., & Ogie, R. O. (2007). Self-efficacy and use of electronic information as predictors of academic performance. Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(2). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/tella_a01.html.

  • Vermunt, J. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs: Naar procesgerichte instructive en zelfstandig denken [Learnng style and coaching learning processes in Higher Education]. Lisse, NL: Swets and Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viau, R., & Larivée, J. (1993). Learning tools with hypertext: An experiment. Computers in Education, 20, 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, M. (2003). Freshmen’s use of library electronic resources and self-efficacy. Information Research, 8(2). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.informationr.net/ir/8-2/paper150.html.

  • Weiss, P. L., Schreure, N., Jermias-Cohen, T., & Josman, N. (2004). An online learning course in Ergonomics. Work, 23, 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (1985). Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements. The Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 673–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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(6), 466–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, H., & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers in Education, 33, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek—Vlaanderen (FWO) grant G.0408.09 that provided the opportunity to write this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, 4000, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Geraldine Clarebout

  2. CIP&T, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, KU Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Geraldine Clarebout

  3. Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, University of Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, 3770, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen, Griet Lust & Norma A. Juarez Collazo

  4. Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, Antwerp, 2000, Belgium

    Lai Jiang

Authors
  1. Geraldine Clarebout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Elen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lai Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Griet Lust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Norma A. Juarez Collazo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geraldine Clarebout .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Jiang, L., Lust, G., Collazo, N.A.J. (2014). Support Device Usage. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_40

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation