Good afternoon, everyone. Well, today I’ll be talking about the role on perceptions on using learning tools. I’ll be talking about an exploratory study we conducted at an early stage of the current research project.
Tools can be considered opportunities in a learning environment. The purpose of these opportunities is to enhance learning. However, a lot of literature to date has proven wrong and it has shown that learners very often do not use tools and when they do, they do it suboptimally. if learners do not make use of the tools provided or use them inadequately, the tools will hardly have a positive effect on the learning process. This reveals that tool use in learning environments is a complex issue.
With this problematic in mind, Perkins in 1985 pointed out three main conditions that would increase the probabilities of tool use. The first condition says that the opportunity, namely tool, is there. The second condition suggests learners should recognize the tool. The final condition points out that learners should be motivated to use the tools. These conditions are at the same time linked with variables that seem to be important on tool use. These are tool and learner related variables. The first condition for example already implies that the tools are functional. Thus tool type and other tool characteristics seem to be implied in the first condition. In the second and third conditions learner variables are involved. If learners recognize the tool functionality then learners have to skills to perceive the tool and to recognize when or how the tool would be beneficial. These are metacognitive variables. The third condition is in line with motivational variables. Relevant motivational variables that have been studied on tool use, but for which concrete evidence is still not provided are self-efficacy and goal orientation.
Just like in the second condition of Perkins, the Technology acceptance model emphasizes the role of metacognitive variables on tool use. This model suggests that the system-tool- use is mediated by the metacognitive variables of perceptions. More specifically, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This model also establishes the role of external variables being mediated by these perceptions which would influence the attitude, behavioral intention and actual tool use. ……. Although the specification on external variables is not very clear, different studies on the TAM have mentioned variables such as self-efficacy or tool type could be part of it, for example. Based on this, we then decided to run the present study. So, we focused on three different aspects.
The first one refers to tool functionality just as in Perkins’ first condition. The second one refers to the role of a metacognitive variables, that is perceived usefulness like in the TAM model and Perkins’ second condition. The third one focuses on the role of other variables on perceived usefulness. This is a motivational variable: self-efficacy which is in relation in the condition 3 of Perkins and metacognition. So our research questions were: READ In order to find this out we … NEXT SLIDE
We had 58 university ss, 74% femal and in average 23. In contrast with other studies on tools, we decided to employ a task that is totatlly not common on studies exploring tool use.
This was a psychomotor task. This psychomotor task consisted of building a LEGO figure of 34 pieces and 3 different colors. Two tools were used. GO TO LINK. Based on these tools, we had four conditions.
The procedure was as follows. There were two thirty-minute sessions. READ DO NOT READ. ONLY EXTRA INFO. The MAI It is comprised of 52-items. Each of these items was part of one of the eight component processes subsumed under knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. The knowledge of cognition scale includes declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge. The second scale, regulation of cognition includes planning, information management strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation. Participants answered each item on a six-point Likert-type scale where one indicated totally not applicable and six totally applicable. Some of the items were “I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals”, “I change strategies when I fail to understand”. The SELF-EFFICACY questionnaire administered was an adaptation of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) and the Self- and Task-Perception Questionnaire (STPQ) (Lodewyk & Winne, 2005). From the two 31-item-sections in the MSLQ questionnaire, only seven questions from the first section (motivation section) were selected and adapted to the task in question. From the STPQ also divided in two sections – self-efficacy for performance and self-efficacy for learning- one item from the self-efficacy for learning section was used and adapted to the task. In total there were eight items in the questionnaire that were applied to measure self-efficacy. Participants answered each item on a six-point Likert-type scale where one indicated strongly agree and six strongly disagree.
First we checked the tool functionality. We did this by analyzing the performance in all conditions. Then to check if learners perceived the most functional tool, we analyze the behavior of learners in the Guideline and video condition. First we saw what tool the stuck to, and if they chose multiple tools, how they used them. Then we did an analysis to see if the variables differed in all conditions and how this may have affected the perceptions.
With respect to tool functionality, we saw that to our surprise and despite our efforts, the video was the most functional tool. We can see in the line chart that the V condition outperformed the other conditions significantly. The ANOVA shows that the V condition outperformed the other conditions.
With respect to perceived usefulness, we observed that learners chose either the guideline only or both tools. Noone chose the video only which is probably related to the perception of usefulness, functionality. 47% chose only the guideline and 53% guideline and video. From this 53%, 67% used the guideline first but finish with the video. The rest 11% chose video then guideline, 11% video, guideline, video and the last 11% guideline, video, guideline. We also run further analysis (Kruskal-Wallis) to see if there was a significant effect between these variables and the way they chose tools in the GV condition but the results pointed to no significant difference between tool sequence and performance.
First we ran an analysis if there was a significant difference among conditions and the variables. Results revealed that the conditions did not differ with respect to self-efficacy F(3,54) = 1.01, p= .40, η²= .05, procedural knowledge F(3,54) = .53, p= .67, η²= .03, information management strategies F(3,54) = .99, p= .40, η²= .0 Then, a logistic regression analysis was undertaken with tool choice as dependent variable and learner variables as independent to see if there was any interaction. The regression analysis shown in the following table revealed that neither self efficacy, field dependence-independence, procedural knowledge, nor information management strategies significantly predicted the tool choice of learners.
First we ran an analysis if there was a significant difference among conditions and the variables. Results revealed that the conditions did not differ with respect to self-efficacy F(3,54) = 1.01, p= .40, η²= .05, procedural knowledge F(3,54) = .53, p= .67, η²= .03, information management strategies F(3,54) = .99, p= .40, η²= .0 Then, a logistic regression analysis was undertaken with tool choice as dependent variable and learner variables as independent to see if there was any interaction. The regression analysis shown in the following table revealed that neither self efficacy, field dependence-independence, procedural knowledge, nor information management strategies significantly predicted the tool choice of learners.
We can conclude that the tools were functional but contrary to our assumptions, the video was the most functional tool. This may have been due to evidence that is in line with the mirror neuron system. It says that dynamic visualizations may be most efficient for tasks that involve movement which was the case. Do learners perceive the most functional tool? No. They apparently detected the video as less functional or the fact of having combined tools influenced. Combined tools probaly caused cognive load on learners. The tool design may have also played a relevant role. Design for use is not always the design of use. Tool familiarity affected in the sense that learners probably chose the guideline over the video ‘cos they were more familiar with it. It is a tool the LEGO website has always provided. Tool flexibility is another aspect that may have also influenced perceived usefulness. There was probably “too much” flexibility or the self-regulations skills were not strong enough. The fact that no effect was seen on the variables might have been due to methodological reasons. First the sample was too little and the instruments, especially the one on metacognition were probably not the most adequate measurements.
Now, as a conclusion, I ‘d like to show you the proposal for the following experiments and based on the present study. This is a model we have developed. This model exemplifies what we want to know in the course of the experiments to come. The proposed research model is twofold. First it is a guide of the present research project which involves a total of four studies, and second it aims at being a model on tool use. Here we have a number of variables being mediated by perceptions on tool use which in turn affect tool use in two ways: quantitatively and qualitatively and performance. This is how I’d like to conclude. I’d be glad to hear comment, remarks or questions from you. Thanks.
The guideline was downloaded from the LEGO website. It consisted of two pages. A page looked like this. It had visual step-by-step instructions. And the video that was self-made with the purpose or making a non-functional tool. This is because the video was at a fast pace and learners could not pause it, forward it, rewind it…. It had no spoken instructions and it lasted 2 min11 sec. GO BACK
![Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion Problematic ,[object Object],[object Object]]()