Abstract

The aim of this research was to analyze the contribution that a self-observation tool (the diary) can offer in a Blended University course with university students. A group of 67 university students observed their listening, reading and study behaviors by recording it in a lecture diary. These behaviors were also tracked and recorded as Log data by the Learning Management System used (Moodle). The research questions we tried to answer were about: a) the ability of students to judge the difficulty of the teaching material and to regulate their behavior on this judgment, assuming that a growth in the judgment of difficulty (indicated through the diary) should have corresponded to an increase in the number of performed activities (recorded via the logs); furthermore: b) they concern the possibility of relating effort to performance, assuming that an increase of the number of activities (recorded by log and declared through the diary) would have improved memory and learning. The main factor underlying the research can be defined as the consistency between student judgments and data obtained from the tracking of logs. Finally: c) we considered the relationship between profit and participation in presence or at a distance. Cues from self-observation and automatic recording of behaviors were then compared. The hypothesis was only partially confirmed by the results obtained. The ability to evaluate the different effort required by the proposed teaching material was prob lematic. The information contribution that can be obtained from the proposed tool for self-observation, the diary, is also under discussion, although it is useful in order to involve the end user in the evaluation and self-regulation process.

Highlights

  • L’uso di lezioni online in molte università ha preso il posto della didattica in presenza, diventando risorsa indispensabile per studenti e life long-learner

  • The aim of this research was to analyze the contribution that a self-observation tool

  • the ability of students to judge the difficulty of the teaching material

Read more

Summary

Open and Interdisciplinary

Coeditors Stefano Cacciamani (University of Valle d’Aosta) Donatella Cesareni (University of Rome “Sapienza”). Kristine Lund (CNRS) Roger Salijo (University of Gothenburg) Marlene Scardamalia (University of Toronto). Crina Damsa (University of Oslo) Frank De Jong (Aeres Wageningen Applied University, The Netherlands) Ola Erstad (University of Oslo) Paolo Ferrari (University of Milan – Bicocca) Alberto Fornasari (University of Bari “Aldo Moro”) Carlo Galimberti (University of Milan – Cattolica) Begona Gros (University of Barcelona) Kai Hakkarainen (University of Helsinki) Vincent Hevern (Le Moyne College) Jim Hewitt (University of Toronto) Antonio Iannaccone (University of Neuchâtel) Liisa Ilomaki (University of Helsinki) Sanna Jarvela (University of Oulu) Richard Joiner (University of Bath) Kristina Kumpulainen (University of Helsinki). Clotilde Pontecorvo (University of Rome “Sapienza”) Peter Renshaw (University of Queensland) Giuseppe Ritella (University of Helsinki) Nadia Sansone (Unitelma Sapienza) Vittorio Scarano (University of Salerno) Roger Schank (Socratic Art).

Metacognizione e giudizi di apprendimento
Learning Analytics
Ho utilizzato il materiale online
Risultati al test finale
Giudizio di difficoltà e impegno
Conclusioni
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call