Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Jane Sinclair

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 3. Visualisation of associated responses from participants

Figure 3 Visualisation of associated responses from participants

Related Figures (8)

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the research methodology research objectives. This platform supports two basic modes of learning: self-directed and instructor-led in which a recommended prerequisite order of lessons helps to cover the full course curriculum [27]. Fig. 2 presents the interface of the Computing concepts and Python programming course in this study. eLDaMOOC - eLearning . Development . Adaptivity
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the research methodology research objectives. This platform supports two basic modes of learning: self-directed and instructor-led in which a recommended prerequisite order of lessons helps to cover the full course curriculum [27]. Fig. 2 presents the interface of the Computing concepts and Python programming course in this study. eLDaMOOC - eLearning . Development . Adaptivity
Table 1. MOSLQ survey question
Table 1. MOSLQ survey question
Fig. 4. Learners preferred mode of learning Paper—Assessing Self-Regulation of Learning Dimensions in a Stand-alone MOOC Platform
Fig. 4. Learners preferred mode of learning Paper—Assessing Self-Regulation of Learning Dimensions in a Stand-alone MOOC Platform
Table 2. Shows high and low self-regulators in the self-directed mode using the average scores
Table 2. Shows high and low self-regulators in the self-directed mode using the average scores
Table 3. Indicate high and low self-regulators in instructor-led mode using the average scores Fig. 5. Overall average score of learners from the six dimensions The results from the instructor-led learning indicated that there are no high self- regulators as all the learners score an average below 3.50 (seen indicated that learner 8, 9, 10 and 11 are low self-regulators. in Table 3). This result The full curve is illus- trated and represented graphically in Fig. 5. However, the learners performed very high in some individual dimensions, for example learner 8 on GS and TM score 3.50 each which is classified as high SRL dimension skills, in SE score 4.00 which is also classified as a high SRL skills in this study. Learner 9 scored very high SE skills with 4.00. On the other hand learner 10 scored 4.00 on both ES and SE dimensions which is also considered as high SRL skills in these categories. Fina shows 3.75 score in TS, 3.50 in both TM and SE and a high ly profiling learner 11 4.00 score in ES. The result reveals that these four learners in this instructor-led mode of study performed very high in self-evaluation skills. Therefore we can argue t hat they are high self- regulators in the SE category as seen in Fig. 3. However overall these learners who followed the instructor-led route of study are all classified as ow self-regulators due to the fact that their average scores were below 3.50 as demonstrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Indicate high and low self-regulators in instructor-led mode using the average scores Fig. 5. Overall average score of learners from the six dimensions The results from the instructor-led learning indicated that there are no high self- regulators as all the learners score an average below 3.50 (seen indicated that learner 8, 9, 10 and 11 are low self-regulators. in Table 3). This result The full curve is illus- trated and represented graphically in Fig. 5. However, the learners performed very high in some individual dimensions, for example learner 8 on GS and TM score 3.50 each which is classified as high SRL dimension skills, in SE score 4.00 which is also classified as a high SRL skills in this study. Learner 9 scored very high SE skills with 4.00. On the other hand learner 10 scored 4.00 on both ES and SE dimensions which is also considered as high SRL skills in these categories. Fina shows 3.75 score in TS, 3.50 in both TM and SE and a high ly profiling learner 11 4.00 score in ES. The result reveals that these four learners in this instructor-led mode of study performed very high in self-evaluation skills. Therefore we can argue t hat they are high self- regulators in the SE category as seen in Fig. 3. However overall these learners who followed the instructor-led route of study are all classified as ow self-regulators due to the fact that their average scores were below 3.50 as demonstrated in Table 3.
Fig. 6. Learners average SRL dimension Levels and modes of study Fig. 7 illustrates the direction of the responses received from the learners. The analysis shows no uniform direction and this correlate with our initial discussion about the unique identity brought into the platform by the individual learners in this study which showcase their individuality and also helped them taking control of their studies. The results show discrepancy in the 19-item that made the MOSLQ in order to obtain the learners’ SRL skills.
Fig. 6. Learners average SRL dimension Levels and modes of study Fig. 7 illustrates the direction of the responses received from the learners. The analysis shows no uniform direction and this correlate with our initial discussion about the unique identity brought into the platform by the individual learners in this study which showcase their individuality and also helped them taking control of their studies. The results show discrepancy in the 19-item that made the MOSLQ in order to obtain the learners’ SRL skills.
Fig. 7. Responses from the MOSLQ based on the dimensional categories
Fig. 7. Responses from the MOSLQ based on the dimensional categories
Related topics:
EngineeringComputer Science
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved