Making Students Responsible for Their Learning – Empowering Learners to Build Shared Mental Models

  • Herco FonteijnEmail author
Part of the Advances in Business Education and Training book series (ABET, volume 6)


Students often fail to live up to the challenge of taking charge of their own learning, even in learning environments that are designed to self-regulate study behavior. This chapter describes attempts to create conditions under which students in tutorial groups in a problem-based learning environment assume greater responsibility for their learning while examining how information technology can support their group work. ICT tools like mapping software and webconferencing facilities, and diminished access to tutor support, allow tutorial groups to strike a new balance between student-centered and teacher-centered activities. Results suggest that students in higher education can learn to thrive on more autonomy. However, educators need to consider several moderating influences like social climate, (nonverbal) feedback, (virtual) collaboration competencies, type of learning task, uncertainty, media richness and length of time that students work together. They may also need to reflect on their identity as teachers.


Information Communication Technology Transactive Memory Virtual Team Tutorial Group Virtual Learning Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baker, R., Walonoski, J., Heffernan, N., Roll, I., Corbett, A., & Koedinger, K. (2008). Why students engage in “gaming the system” behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19, 185–224.Google Scholar
  2. Blume, B., Ford, J., Baldwin, T., & Huang, J. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 1065–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruns, A., Keith, N., & Mueller, S. (2013). Self-regulated performance improvement through deliberate practice in organizations: The case of female employees and skills to career advancement. Paper presented at 16th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Congress, Muenster, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, L., & Hutchins, H. (2007). A study of best practices in training transfer and proposed model of transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chai, S., & Kim, M. (2010). What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 408–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.Google Scholar
  8. DeRosa, D., Smith, C., & Hantula, D. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1549–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolmans, D., & Schmidt, H. (2010). The problem-based learning process. In H. van Berkel, A. Scherpbier, H. Hillen, & C. Van der Vleuten (Eds.), Lessons from problem-based learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., van der Vleuten, C., & Wijnen, W. (2001). Solving problems with group work in problem-based learning: Hold on to the philosophy. Medical Education, 35, 884–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Ekeocha, J., & Brennan, S. (2008). Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups. Memory, 16, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fonteijn, H., & Frerejean, J. (2010, December). Enhancing small group functioning in problem based learning using a visual organiser. In Proceedings international conference on enhancing learning experiences in higher education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University. Accessed 29 July 2013.
  14. Gagne, M. (2009). A model of knowledge sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48, 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelernter, D. (2010). Time to start taking the Internet seriously. Accessed 20 Apr 2010.
  16. Gureckis, T., & Markant, D. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilbert, T., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofgaard Lycke, K., Stromso, H., & Grottum, P. (2006). Tracing the tutor role in problem-based learning and PBLonline. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.), Problem-based learning online. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, C., Colquitt, J., Wesson, M., & Zapata-Phelan, C. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Judge, T., Erez, A., Bono, J., & Thoresen, C. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.Google Scholar
  24. Krumm, S., & Hertel, G. (2013). Knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) for virtual teamwork. Paper presented at 16th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Congress, Muenster, Germany.Google Scholar
  25. Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Confusion and complex learning during interactions with computer learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martins, L., Gilson, L., & Maynard, M. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.Google Scholar
  27. Mesmer-Magnus, J., & DeChurch, L. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mesmer-Magnus, J., DeChurch, L., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitra, S., & Kulkarni, S. (2010). Access and quality in self organized learning environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Wiley Online Library, at Accessed 29 July 2013.
  30. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nijstad, B., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Ordóñez, L., Schweitzer, M., Galinsky, A., & Bazerman, M. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ortiz de Guinea, A., Webster, J., & Staples, D. (2012). A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Information and Management, 49, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pulfrey, C., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2012). Autonomy and task performance: Examining the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ren, Y., Harper, F. M., Drenner, S., Terveen, L. G., Kiesler, S. B., Riedl, J., & Kraut, R. E. (2012). Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 841–864.Google Scholar
  38. Rentsch, J., Mello, A., & Delise, L. (2010). Collaboration and meaning analysis process in intense problem solving teams. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations. What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Savin-Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (2006). Problem-based learning online. McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, H. (2010). A review of the evidence: Effects of problem-based learning on students and graduates of Maastricht medical school. In H. van Berkel, A. Scherpbier, H. Hillen, & C. van der Vleuten (Eds.), Lessons from problem-based learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidt, H., van der Molen, H., te Winkel, W., & Wijnen, W. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwonke, R., Ertelt, A., Otieno, C., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2013). Metacognitive support promotes an effective use of instructional resources in intelligent tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 23, 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singaram, V. S., Van Der Vleuten, C. P., Van Berkel, H., & Dolmans, D. H. (2010). Reliability and validity of a tutorial group effectiveness instrument. Medical Teacher, 32(3), e133–e137.Google Scholar
  46. Son, L., & Seti, R. (2010). Adaptive learning and the allocation of time. Adaptive Behavior, 18, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: Training and development. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 249–289). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333, 776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communications. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Staples, D., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems, 18, 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stone, C., Coman, A., Brown, A., Koppel, J., & Hirst, W. (2012). Conversational silence and memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Vol. 219). Lexington: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  53. Thompson, M., Naccarato, M., Parker, K., & Moskowitz, G. (2001). The Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) scales. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 19–39). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. (2010). Why do employees undertake creative action? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Emmerik, I. J., Jawahar, J., & Stone, T. (2004). The relationship between personality and discretionary helping behaviors. Psychological Reports, 95, 355–365.Google Scholar
  56. Van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualisation. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. van Knippenberg, D., de Dreu, C., & Homan, A. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Lange, P., Schippers, D., & Balliet, D. (2010). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Visschers-Pleijers, A., Dolmans, D., de Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I., Jacobs, J., & van der Vleuten, C. (2006). Student perceptions about the characteristics of an effective discussion during the reporting phase in problem-based learning. Medical Education, 40, 924–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wendt, H., Euwema, M., & Van Emmerik, I. J. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 358–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland: CPsquare.Google Scholar
  62. Yu, T., Lu, L., & Liu, T. (2010). Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Work and Social PsychologyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations