Scaffolding and enhancing learners' self-regulated learning: Testing the effects of online video-based interactive learning environment on learning outcomes (dissertation).
Delen, E. (2013). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
-
examining80Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Online, video-based interactive learning environment)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed test on renewable energy knowledge. |
Online, video-based interactive learning environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.50 |
14.81 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 63%
Male: 37% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a university in southern Texas during the 2013 spring semester.
Study sample
The sample had the following characteristics: Sixty-three percent were female; 58 percent were between 18 and 25 years old, 34 percent were between 26 and 30 years old, and 9 percent were over 30;. 49 percent were undergraduates (the remainder were graduate students). The distribution of the sample in terms of their majors is as follows: Thirty-eight percent in educational psychology; 21 percent in interdisciplinary studies; 10 percent in psychology; and 10 percent in teaching, learning, and culture.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group viewed a 16-minute, researcher-designed online video that included several embedded interactive features. The video, constructed from several educational videos, presented information about various renewable energy sources. Students could control the video (e.g., pause, rewind 5 seconds, skip to the last viewed scene). The video player contained an interactive note-taking component that allowed students to add notes which were then linked to specific scenes. Also, the video player also asked students periodically whether they wanted to view an available additional resource (either a graph or image) related to the video content and asked several practice questions related to the content (answers to the questions were provided immediately).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group watched the same instructional video as students in the intervention condition but the video environment for comparison students was not interactive.
Support for implementation
Students in the intervention condition used an online, video-based interactive learning environment in a computer lab. Students watched an instructional video that combined several videos from the energyNOW! website. Interactive components were added to the video using a software development tool called LiveCode 5.5.2.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).