Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 793–794

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

The use of support devices in electronic learning environments

Geraldine Clarebout a,*, Holger Horz b, Jan Elen a

a Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgiumb Department of General and Educational Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online 23 August 2008

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.004

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: geraldine.clarebout@ped.kuleuven

This special issue addresses the use of support devices in electronic learning environments. Five articleseach discus a study or several studies where the use of support devices is not evident. Factors influencingthe use of support devices are addressed: elements of the learning environment, characteristics of thelearner, etc.

The discussion of this special issue reflects in general on support in computer-based learningenvironments.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Imagine a student solving a problem on the computer. On thescreen, different buttons leading to support are available, but asit is not immediately apparent what those buttons represent, thestudent decides not to use them. Or, imagine a student who isasked to answer reflection questions while solving a problem.The aim of such questions is to encourage the learner to reflecton the problem solving process, thus fostering deeper learning.However, the learner quickly completes the activities and contin-ues, without engaging in reflection. Finally, imagine a computer-based intermediate test developed to enable students to monitortheir own learning progress: surprisingly, only 50% of the studentsactually use this opportunity, despite being told that there is a po-sitive correlation between taking the test and final achievementscores.

Authors and users of electronic learning environments will rec-ognize at least one of the above situations, which reveal an issuethat is problematic from an educational perspective: support is of-fered in a learning environment, but it is either not used by thelearners or used sub-optimally. In 1985, Perkins already pointedto this phenomenon when he stated that learners do not takeadvantage of learning opportunities provided to them by informa-tion technologies. More recently, a review by Aleven, Stahl, Sch-worm, Fischer, and Wallace (2003) confirmed the finding that theuse of support devices in electronic learning environments is prob-lematic. Different factors seem to play a role in the use of supportdevices: In line with Aleven et al. (2003), a review by Clarebout andElen (2006) showed that the type of support device plays a role,while mixed evidence was found for the role of specific learnercharacteristics such as prior knowledge. The first factor was clearly

ll rights reserved.

.be (G. Clarebout).

illustrated by Oliver and Hannafin (2000), who showed that in acomputer-based learning environment, students mainly used sup-port devices that deliver additional information, while support de-vices aimed at supporting metacognitive skills by inviting studentsto reflect on their activities were seldom used. With respect to thesecond factor, a study conducted by Martens, Valcke, and Portier(1997) revealed that students with higher prior knowledge tendto use support devices more than students with lower priorknowledge. In contrast, Renkl (2002) found that students withless prior knowledge more frequently used a support deviceoffering a worked-out example. This may also indicate an interac-tion between the type of support device and students’ priorknowledge.

Of course, it could be argued that when all support devices areembedded, and hence the learner is required to use them, all prob-lems are solved. But this may not necessarily be the case. The studyconducted by Greene and Land (2000), for instance, showed thatwhen these support devices are embedded in the learning environ-ment, students tend to use them superficially. In their study, super-ficial learning activities were performed with the embeddedsupport devices; rather than engaging in in-depth activities suchas reflection, students just listed websites when a reflection sup-port device was offered.

The present special issue tries to addresses the complexity ofthe use of support devices in electronic learning environments infive contributions. A first contribution, by Manlove, Lazonder,and de Jong (2009), deals with the use of a support device called‘‘Process Coordinator”, which aims at supporting students’ cogni-tive regulation skills during a fluid dynamics task. The results ofthree studies are analysed to identify support device usage andits relationship with learning outcome measures.

A second article, by Clarebout and Elen (2009), reports on threedifferent studies that examine the use of various types of support

794 G. Clarebout et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 793–794

devices within the framework developed by Perkins (1985). Theencouragement of support device usage is also investigated.

Thirdly, Zumbach (2009) compares three groups with respectto their learning results. On the one hand, this contribution looksat the functionality of a specific support device that requireslearners to perform an argumentation task, on the other hand,it investigates the influence of the support device’s design bycomparing a graphic-based argumentation support device to atext-based one.

The fourth article, by Horz, Winter, and Fries (2009), exploresthe effect of situated prompts as a means to enhance the use ofsupport devices. The use of prompts is also the topic of the final pa-per, by Bannert, Hildebrand, and Mengelkamp (2009). More specif-ically, the authors focus on the use of prompts in combination witha support device to train students in the performance of metacog-nitive activities.

In summary, this special issue addresses the complexity of sup-port device usage in electronic learning environments by examin-ing the type of support device (informational, cognitive,metacognitive), the modality (text-based, graphical), possible waysof explicitly encouraging the use of support devices, and finallyspecific learner characteristics, such as prior knowledge, self-regu-lation and goal orientation

The discussion by Scott Grabinger (2009), which explores anumber of general issues raised by the different contributionsand views support device usage as a metacognitive skill, helpsset the agenda for further research on the use of support devices.

References

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

Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitivesupport device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25,829–835.

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

Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009). Benefits of inserting support devices in electroniclearning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 804–810.

Grabinger, S. (2009). Discussion: A conceptual framework for investigating adjuncttools in computer-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 836–840.

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

Horz, H., Winter, C., & Fries, S. (2009). Differential benefitis of inserted instructionalprompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 818–828.

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

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

Oliver, K. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-basedhypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal ofEducational Research, 94, 75–92.

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

Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instruction explanations support learningby self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.

Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools inhypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 811–817.