Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

[Link]

Effects of adaptive feedback through a digital tool

– a mixed‑methods study on the course of self‑regulated
learning

Mathias Mejeh1,2 · Livia Sarbach1 · Tina Hascher1

Received: 3 July 2023 / Accepted: 23 January 2024 / Published online: 2 March 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Lifelong learning is emerging as a key priority for promoting equity and sustainability
in societies. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a fundamental requirement for achieving
successful lifelong learning, and digitization is increasingly influential in this regard.
This mixed-methods study explores the degree to which adaptive learning technology
(ALT) can assist university students in their SRL with timely and personalized support.
Additionally, the study examines how students perceive this feedback and incorporate
it into their learning behavior. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we investigated the
development of SRL over a 9-week period. Semi-structured interviews were conducted
with purposively selected learners, based on stimulated recalls. The quantitative results
demonstrate positive development in certain components of SRL. Furthermore, the
results indicate that metacognitive activity can be partially predicted by motivational
and emotional states. The qualitative findings reveal that learners have varying percep-
tions of feedback received from ALT and integrate it into their learning behaviors based
on their individual benefits. The results support the assumption that feedback provided
through educational technology must be precisely tailored to the needs of learners, tak-
ing into account the dynamics of their individual learning processes. The study contrib-
utes to the ongoing discussion on the design of educational technology.

Keywords Self-regulated learning · Adaptive learning technology · Feedback ·

Mixed-methods

1 Introduction

Lifelong learning is crucial in the twenty-first century for addressing global chal-
lenges such as health, climate crises, and technological transformation (UNESCO,
2022). Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) is essential for lifelong learning, involving
independent and self-directed behavior to improve knowledge and skills (Lüftenegger
et al., 2012; Wigfield et al., 2011) and is even considered the centerpiece of learning

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
17764 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

in the twenty-first-century (Anthonysamy et al., 2020). Students who successfully

regulate their learning processes show better academic performance (e.g., Richardson
et al., 2012) and experience a higher sense of well-being (Davis & Hadwin, 2021).
Contemporary SRL research is increasingly focusing on student learning in digi-
tal learning environments (Broadbent et al., 2020a; Kuhnel et al., 2018), which is
both prerequisite and a result of the digitization of university teaching. Modern
educational technology and online learning environments can be an essential pre-
requisite for a better understanding of SRL (Winne, 2022). For students in higher
education, successful SRL is crucial (Jansen et al., 2019) as they – in contrast to
learners in elementary and secondary school – experience far more responsibility
and freedom for their learning (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). While the relevance of SRL
in higher education has been demonstrated numerous times, more work is needed
to better understand how to foster and empower students in terms of their SRL
through adaptive learning technologies (Broadbent & Poon, 2015). Several aspects
need more attention: Firstly, the successful regulation of one’s learning process is
dynamic, temporal, and adaptive (Greene et al., 2021). Accurately capturing and
analyzing SRL remains a complex task for researchers (Molenaar, 2014; Winne &
Perry, 2000). Secondly, higher education is characterized by an increasingly diverse
student body in which clear differences in the effective use of SRL strategies are
becoming apparent (de Bruijn-Smolders et al., 2016; Dörrenbächer-Ulrich et al.,
2021; Jansen et al., 2019; Peverly et al., 2003; Wolters & Brady, 2021). However,
personalized, real-time feedback that best assists learners in their SRL is still rarely
used in higher education (Tsai et al., 2020). Third, students not only need ongoing
feedback on their learning process but also need to find themselves in a learning
environment that is conducive to SRL (Dignath & Veenman, 2021).
This study aims to contribute to an understanding of the SLR process by using a
digital tool called “studybuddy” to capture and analyze task-related SRL and exam-
ine the impact of adaptive feedback on students’ SRL. The study combines qualita-
tive and quantitative methods to gain a deeper understanding of SRL development
and promotion (Anthonysamy et al., 2020; Kelle, 2015; McCardle & Hadwin, 2015;
Pekrun, 2020).

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Self‑regulated learning: Processes & strategies

SRL is defined as independent, self-directed behavior by individuals seeking to

improve their knowledge and skills (Paris & Paris, 2001). In this context, learn-
ing takes place under intentional regulation and monitoring of cognition, emo-
tion, behavior, and motivation (Pintrich, 2004; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmer-
man, 2008). Through the intentional use of (meta-) cognitive, motivational, and
emotional strategies, students gain a deeper understanding of their own learning
as they try to achieve previously set learning goals (Boekaerts, 2011). SRL, in the
early stages of its theoretical conceptualization, was primarily defined and measured

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17765

Fig. 1  Self-regulation process model of learning (Schmitz & Wiese, 2006)

as a dispositional trait (Winne & Perry, 2000). Contemporary views see SRL as a
dynamic and iterative process in which different components of learning (viewed as
states) unfold over time (Greene et al., 2021; Molenaar & Järvelä, 2014). In research
focused on the dynamics of SRL, time units are conceptualized differently, resulting
in artificial divisions. These divisions may encompass a range of temporal segments,
including individual lessons or complete teaching units spanning several weeks. It
is therefore fundamental to link the segmentation of defined periods to clear guide-
lines and justify them theoretically (Molenaar, 2014). Moreover, regulatory strate-
gies are often directly included in the definitional framework of SRL because they
play a fundamental role in each stage of the learning process (Matcha et al., 2019)
and their use is associated with the active construction of knowledge (Winne, 2005;
Zimmerman, 2008).
In this paper, the self-regulation process model (Schmitz, 2001; Schmitz &
Wiese, 2006) provides the theoretical basis, as it focuses on the learning phase-
related application of self-regulation strategies (see Fig. 1). The model is based on
Zimmerman’s (2000) cyclical phase model, whose central importance is the division
of learning into a pre-actional, actional, and post-actional phase (Schmitz, 2001).
Accordingly, learning is divided into different episodes (e.g., a task, a lesson, or a
whole school day) that proceed cyclically, whereby – due to a feedback loop – pre-
ceding phases influence subsequent phases (Bellhäuser et al., 2022). The self-regula-
tion process model emphasizes the dynamic course of SRL and the role of feedback.
During the pre-actional phase of the self-regulation process model of learning,
various motivational and emotional factors are relevant for the success of SRL. At
the beginning of the learning cycle, learners are confronted with a task, which can
be either self-set or externally-set, highlighting the importance of task value (Eccles,
1983; Pintrich, 1999). To tackle a task, learners autonomously set goals, while goal

13
17766 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

orientation is considered significant as predictor for metacognitive activity (Pintrich,

2004; Wigfield et al., 2011). Additionally, self-efficacy is identified as a key factor
for successful SRL in the pre-actional stage, as it plays a crucial role in planning
learners’ strategy use (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich et al., 1991). Furthermore, the emo-
tional state significantly impacts this learning phase as emotions can influence moti-
vation, cognition and learning intentions (Boekaerts, 2011; Efklides, 2011). Once
the task analysis process is finished, learners develop plans on how to achieve their
set goals.
The actional phase and the actual processing of the task begin after the planning
is completed. Schmitz and Wiese (2006) draw a fundamental distinction between the
quantity and the quality of learning activities: While the quantity of learning basi-
cally addresses how much time is invested in learning, the quality aims at the ques-
tion of how learners learn. Of central importance with regard to the quality of learn-
ing is the application of metacognitive (e.g., monitoring) as well as cognitive (e.g.,
organization) strategies (Pintrich et al., 1991; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). In addition
to cognitive components, emotional as well as motivational states are of importance.
For example, a purposeful application of volitional strategies and resource manage-
ment is indispensable in this phase for learners in order to effectively deal with dis-
tractions, to engage in learning or to avoid procrastinating behavior (Pintrich, 1999).
The learning episode concludes with the post-actional phase, in which the learn-
ing and task results are reflected and evaluated accordingly. For this purpose, the
goals set at the beginning of the learning process are compared with the goals
achieved. Learners assess their satisfaction with regard to the quantity of what they
have learned (quantitative learning aspect) and their understanding (qualitative
learning aspect). If the achieved result is not satisfactory, learners with strong SRL
skills take action to optimize their learning process in the next learning episode.
This happens, for example, by adjusting learning strategies or setting more realistic
goals. If the learning outcome is satisfactory, the chosen strategies are maintained
(Schmitz, 2001). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction, respectively, are closely linked to
positive and negative emotions, highlighting the significance of emotional states in
metacognitive regulation during the post-actional phase (Boekaerts, 1997; Pekrun
et al., 2002; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006).
According to Schmitz’s process model, effective strategy application is central
to successful SRL, and continuous monitoring and adaptation of strategies, as sug-
gested by Zimmerman (2008), are necessary prerequisites for achieving this suc-
cess. SRL strategies positively influence academic performance, enabling learners to
acquire the subject matter in a structured and methodological way (Broadbent, 2017;
Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Richardson et al., 2012). Furthermore, monitoring one’s
learning process, emotion regulation and motivational incentives are also signifi-
cant for learning (Streblow & Schiefele, 2006). Strategies play a fundamental role in
each stage of the learning process since learners can optimize the learning process
by using appropriate learning strategies, allowing them to learn in a self-regulated
way (Matcha et al., 2019). The type and frequency of use of SRL strategies vary
(Dörrenbächer & Perels, 2016), which can be attributed to different experiences
with strategies, divergent preferences, or different frequency of use for them (Broad-
bent et al., 2020b; Dörrenbächer & Perels, 2016). Theobald and Bellhäuser (2022)

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17767

distinguish between learners who lack knowledge of effective strategies, and those
who know effective strategies but have difficulty applying them in different contexts.
They emphasize the significance of accounting for the dynamic nature of SRL when
developing interventions, as students may necessitate varying forms of support
based on situational factors. The deployment of effective strategies is closely associ-
ated with adaptive feedback (Matcha et al., 2019).

2.2 The role of feedback and adaptive learning technologies in enhancing

self‑regulated learning

Feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing learning outcomes in higher education,

with particular emphasis on its potential to improve students’ SRL (e.g., Cornelius-
White, 2007; Shute, 2008). Feedback is defined as the process by which learners
extract information from various sources (e.g., teachers, fellow students, friends,
family members, or automated computer-based systems) and modify their learning
and work processes accordingly (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Carless, 2015). Feedback
can be classified as internal or external (Winne & Hadwin, 1998), where external
feedback refers to those regulations that support learners in monitoring their learn-
ing process by providing them with information about their progress. External
feedback informs learners about gaps between their current performance and their
desired objectives and helps to regulate their learning accordingly to reduce these
discrepancies (Devolder et al., 2012; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). During this regu-
latory process, learners can generate internal feedback (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick,
2006). Feedback is therefore often considered a dialogic process in which learn-
ers are expected to transform external feedback into internal feedback and utilize
it effectively (Carless & Winstone, 2020). The link between the two types of feed-
back and SRL becomes evident during the monitoring of tactics, strategies and the
discrepancy between goals and outcomes (Butler & Winne, 1995). The internal
feedback generated by this metacognitive process assists learners in regulating their
knowledge, beliefs, goals, tactics, and strategies. Learners can decide to modify their
strategies to achieve their goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). External feedback can
assist learners in adapting, selecting as well as utilizing regulatory strategies, thereby
stimulating internal feedback processes and enhancing SRL skills (Lim et al., 2021).
Learners with higher SRL skills can more effectively self-generate internal feedback
compared to learners with lower SRL skills since they can make appropriate regula-
tions and possess adequate knowledge about potential learning strategies or resource
utilization (Chou & Zou, 2020; Matcha et al., 2019).
While the significance of rich and tailored feedback has long been acknowledged,
its scalability in modern educational settings has been limited (Matcha et al., 2019).
One promising solution for personalized and timely feedback processes is adaptive
learning technology (ALT) (Martin et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2019). ALTs can trigger
an iterative cycle of self-monitoring (internal feedback), performance, assessment,
and external feedback based on data about learners and their learning environment,
thereby providing feedback to learners and instructors to support the assessment and
adaptation of the learning process (Schmid et al., 2022a, 2022b). ALTs have been

13
17768 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

shown to have a significant impact on successful SRL (e.g., Aleven et al., 2017;
Molenaar & Van Campen, 2016), with Molenaar and colleagues (Molenaar et al.,
2021) suggesting that ALTs take over part of the control and monitoring loop in
these technologies, as evidenced by the COPES Model (Winne & Hadwin, 1998).
Moreover, recent work proposes SRL models to describe the complex mediation
processes involved in student technology-based learning (Azevedo & Gašević, 2019;
Winne & Azevedo, 2014). ALTs have also been used to identify students’ weaknesses
in SRL and improve them through the use of clear goals, as demonstrated by Forsyth
et al. (2016). They employed an Adaptive Grading Learning System that allowed learn-
ers to evaluate their learning and receive timely, personalized feedback from instructors.
To date, several ALTs have been developed and implemented with the goal of providing
feedback to learners (and instructors) and promoting SRL (e.g., Molenaar et al., 2020;
Pammer-Schindler et al., 2018). A literature review conducted by Jivet et al. (2017)
examined 26 tools designed to support the learning process in online learning environ-
ments, of which 13 were intended to promote SRL. The results demonstrated that SRL
can be promoted by such tools if they support learners’ awareness of their learning and
reflection on the learning process. The tools suggest learning objectives or learning
activities, learning paths, or strategies and tips for SRL (Pammer-Schindler et al., 2018).
Thus, ALTs have the potential to provide personalized and scalable feedback to learners,
allowing them to monitor and regulate their learning process, ultimately promoting the
development of SRL skills.

3 “Studybuddy” – a digital tool to foster self‑regulated learning

“Studybuddy” is an ALT in form of a website as well as a corresponding app. The

basic idea of studybuddy is a digital tool that fosters SRL and allows to create a
learning environment conducive to SRL. In this context, studybuddy provides feed-
back to learners and teachers. Learning analytics (LA) play a key role in the design
and implementation of studybuddy as an ALT, as they enable the platform to pro-
vide data-driven insights and personalized support. Studybuddy provides learn-
ers with SRL strategies, course tasks, and reminders to complete them. In doing
so, learners are provided with feedback through various notes and strategies in the
form of prompts. In this way, they receive direct feedback on their learning process.
It can also be used as a planning tool, featuring a calendar and a note function. A
central feature is that studybuddy supports instructors in monitoring and diagnosing
the learning progress of students and responding accordingly. For example, more
differentiated feedback can be given (formative or summative), learning content can
be structured better, and the teaching can be adapted based on the students’ learn-
ing progress. Higher SRL can be achieved by studybuddy interacting directly with
the learners concerning their learning processes. A questionnaire-based approach
is used to collect SRL-relevant data from learners over time, including information
on motivation, emotion, cognition, metacognition, and resource management. The
questionnaire is integrated into the digital learning environment as a weekly short
survey, administered before and after learners’ complete course tasks. For the most
part, the content and functionality of the website is the same as that of the app.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17769

Fig. 2  Overview different functions of studybuddy

All learning materials and the learning strategy collection can be accessed via both
media. The app proves to be essential in that its use allows for direct interaction
with the users by sending different prompts. The app is also used to display indi-
vidual learning progress (dashboard function). Studybuddy consists of four parts:
an automated feedback system, a digital dashboard, personalized strategies, and a
planning tool (Fig. 2).

3.1 Automated feedback system integrated in studybuddy

An automated feedback system provides learners with timely and personalized feed-
back in the form of push notifications. This feedback is essential for SRL, as it helps
learners to adjust their learning strategies and monitor their progress (Nicol & Mac-
farlane-Dick, 2006). The feedback is pre-programmed and can be send to learners
at a predefined time (e.g., push notification of the start of the week) or activated
individually based on their needs and preferences (e.g., push notification of new
learning strategies). This has been shown to be particularly effective for SRL, as it
enables learners to make timely adjustments to their learning strategies and monitor
their progress (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Shute (2008) found that learners who
received immediate and specific feedback through an ALT made significant gains in
their performance compared to learners who received delayed or general feedback.

13
17770 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

The system can remind students of newly unlocked tasks, keeping them engaged
and motivated (Seiler et al., 2018). Notifications are also activated based on certain
behavioral patterns within the learning environment, which helps learners to reflect
on their learning behaviors and improve their self-regulation skills (Bodily & Ver-
bert, 2017). For instance, when a learner clicks on the “Task completed” button, a
notice appears utilizing images and text material to draw their attention to the suc-
cessful completion of the tasks (Ifenthaler et al., 2021). Additionally, notes become
visible in the learning environment at predefined points in time, drawing learners’
attention to the strategy recommendations or strategy collection, which can enhance
their learning outcomes (Garcia et al., 2018).

3.2 Digital dashboard integrated in studybuddy

Data collected through the self-reporting process can also be visualized in the form
of a digital dashboard, which is an essential feature of LA feedback interventions for
promoting SRL (e.g., Ali et al., 2012). Visualizing information is crucial for learn-
ers, as it enables them to gain insights into their learning activities and the associ-
ated impact (Bodily & Verbert, 2017; Ifenthaler et al., 2021). Digital dashboards
have received significant attention in recent years as a tool for visualizing data in
educational contexts (Verbert et al., 2013). Studybuddy features a digital dashboard
that provides learners real-time access to their learning progress, allowing them to
track their learning-related data over a specific time period. This includes diagrams
like progress curves, which aid learners in reflecting on their learning and making
informed decisions about their next steps (Ifenthaler & Drachsler, 2018). The study-
buddy dashboard provides an overview of learning-related data for motivation, emo-
tion, cognition, metacognition and resource management. The average value of these
variables is calculated automatically for each short survey and displays the results in
the form of progress curves for each individual area, providing a visual representa-
tion of the learner’s progress. This feedback intervention empowers learners to take
control of and direct their own learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), which
can ultimately lead to improved learning outcomes.

3.3 Personalized strategies integrated in studybuddy

LA can help to provide insights into how to personalize feedback and interventions
to meet the unique needs of the learners (Baker & Inventado, 2014; Kovanović et al.,
2018). This allows for individualized LA feedback to be sent to learners in the form
of personalized strategy recommendations based on individual motivation, emotion,
cognition, metacognition, and resource management data (Fig. 6). The integration of
personalized strategy recommendations into a digital learning environment, such as
studybuddy, can help to facilitate learners’ adoption and use of these strategies, as
well as provide a convenient and accessible resource for their ongoing development
(e.g., Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013).
The majority of the strategies used by studybuddy are based on the German
version (Metzger, 2017) of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17771

(Weinstein et al., 1988). The individual strategies are adjusted and displayed after
each collection of learner-related data, both before and after solving tasks. The for-
mat takes on the form of short videos that use pictographs and text to clearly illus-
trate the recommended actions (for an overview of the specific strategies see Appen-
dix A). For example, for motivation, one strategy is to create a sense of achievement.
This involves rewarding oneself to an appropriate degree for achieving intermedi-
ate goals or embedding an unpleasant task between the completion of two pleasant
tasks. In the context of emotion, learners can engage in “expressive writing”, where
they write down all their emotions without worrying about grammar or spelling.
This activity allows them to reflect on their emotions, resulting in greater emotional
regulation and control. For cognition, learners can use the “slow down” strategy,
which involves going through the learning material again and taking small breaks
to improve understanding and retention. In terms of metacognition, learners can
manage their tasks more effectively by using the “task management” strategy, which
involves diversifying their work schedule and packing unpleasant tasks between two
more pleasant ones. This strategy helps learners prioritize their time, resulting in
greater productivity and reduced stress. Finally, when considering resource manage-
ment, learners can optimize their workspace using the “flow place” strategy, which
involves identifying the best place to focus and making sure they are in that environ-
ment. By optimizing their resources, learners can better concentrate on their learn-
ing tasks. The individual strategies are adjusted and displayed after each collection
of learner-related data (before and after solving the tasks, respectively).

3.4 Planning tool integrated in studybuddy

Along with LA feedback, studybuddy has other functionalities that aim to promote
different components of SRL and contribute to the design of a learning environment
conducive to SRL. For example, a course could be completely configured through
the tool. Learners can access all learning content (course content, etc.) directly via
the app and website. Research has shown that a well-designed digital learning envi-
ronment can enhance learners’ SRL skills and academic performance (e.g., Järvelä
& Hadwin, 2013). By providing a planning tool within the app, studybuddy sup-
ports learners in this important aspect of SRL. Learners can use the tool to set goals,
schedule their learning activities, and track their progress over time. This type of
tool has been shown to be effective in improving learners’ self-regulation and aca-
demic performance (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). In addition to the planning tool,
the note function in studybuddy can also be a useful tool for learners to organize
their thoughts and ideas. Research has shown that taking notes can improve learn-
ers’ comprehension and retention of information, as well as facilitate metacognitive
processes such as reflection and self-evaluation (Kiewra et al., 1991). By providing
a digital note-taking function, studybuddy enables learners to capture and organize
their thoughts in a convenient and accessible way.

13
17772 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

4 The present study

Broadbent and Poon (2015) argue that although the importance of SRL has been
established in higher education, further research is necessary to enhance our
understanding of how to promote and enable students’ SRL. Adaptive feedback
is critical to the success of SRL as students frequently struggle with selecting
and modifying their strategies to meet the demands of their coursework. This
underscores the significance of ALTs for learners, as students should not be per-
ceived as homogeneous groups. To reveal the impact of ALTs on learners’ SRL,
data should be collected and analyzed at all SRL phases (Bellhäuser et al., 2022;
Roll & Winne, 2015). In this context, the self-regulation process model (Schmitz,
2001; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006) is a valuable analytical framework since it consid-
ers the dynamic nature of SRL, the importance of feedback, and the significance
of SRL strategies. This study investigates learner support at various stages of
the SRL process over time, employing a digital tool. Due to the learning setting,
learners were given a total of one week to complete the tasks. Thus, to measure
the dynamics of the SRL process over time, this study was established with a
one-week learning cycle as the unit of time. Personalized and timely feedback
was provided, both before (pre-actional) and after (post-actional) task comple-
tion, to assist learners as necessary.
Given the need of a better understanding of the SRL learning process, the follow-
ing quantitative research questions were addressed in our study:

Research question 1: How does the weekly development of task-related (meta-)

cognitive, motivational, and emotional aspects of learners’ SRL unfold during the
pre-actional phase over the course of a semester while using an ALT?

Hypotheses 1a:
Since studybuddy adaptively supports students during the pre-actional phase, we
expect an increase in their metacognitive activity (planning), motivational (self-
efficacy, task value, goal orientation) as well as positive emotional state (enjoy-
ment), while expecting a decrease in negative emotional state (anger) over time.

Hypotheses 1b:
Furthermore, we hypothesize that positive motivational and emotional states
positively predict planning activity.

Research question 2: How does the weekly development of task-related (meta-)

cognitive and emotional aspects of learners’ SRL unfold during the post-actional
phase over the course of a semester while using an ALT?

Hypotheses 2a:
As studybuddy adaptively supports students during the post-actional phase as
well, we hypothesize an increase in metacognitive activity (organization, moni-

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17773

Fig. 3  Convergent Parallel Research Design

toring) and emotional state (enjoyment), while expecting a decrease in negative

emotional state (anger) over time.

Hypotheses 2b:
We assume that positive emotional states positively predict monitoring and
organization.

A deeper understanding of the SRL process includes the question how learners
accept and interact with feedback. While many tools provide automated feedback
to learners, there is little evidence on how learners accept and interact with auto-
mated feedback (Ifenthaler et al., 2021). The qualitative research questions thus are
as follows:

Research question 3: How do students perceive timely, personalized feedback

from an ALT, in relation to their SRL processes?

Sub question 1: How do learners perceive and integrate feedback from study-
buddy during the pre-actional phase, and how does it inform their subsequent
actional practice?

Sub question 2: How do learners perceive and describe feedback from study-
buddy during the actional phase?

Sub question 3: How do learners perceive and use feedback from studybuddy
during the post-actional phase to inform their next learning cycle?

13
17774 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

5 Method

The present study used a mixed-methods design, specifically a convergent parallel

research design (Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2018), to combine qualitative and quan-
titative strands of research (Fig. 3). This approach allowed us to address the need for
more qualitative studies in SRL research (Pekrun, 2020), and provided both broad
and deep insights into the development and promotion of SRL through a digital tool
(Anthonysamy et al., 2020; Kelle, 2015; McCardle & Hadwin, 2015).

5.1 Participants

A concurrent mixed method sampling was conducted to collect and analyze both
qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). The quan-
titative sample consisted of 33 students with a mean age of 26.3 (SD = 3.89) from
a university in Switzerland. The students were all undergraduates who were taking
a methods course as part of their educational science studies. Of these 33 students,
29 students were female (87.9%) and 4 students were male (12.1%). This gender
ratio is typical for educational science programs at Swiss universities. To gain
deeper insights relevant to the research interest the case selection for the qualitative
sub-study was based on the principle of purposeful or purposive sampling, which
involves using a qualitative sampling plan (Schreier, 2017). The selection of stu-
dents to be interviewed was based on their academic performance and study experi-
ence, both factors likely to be related to the phenomenon of interest, as this has been
empirically demonstrated in previous research (e.g., Gerholz, 2012). To construct a
qualitative sampling design, the factors were combined using the criteria outlined
in Appendix B. For each combination of factor expressions, one case was randomly
selected, resulting in the selection of six female students from the seminar for the
qualitative interviews. The researchers’ university provided ethics approval. The stu-
dents were informed of the study’s purpose and gave their informed consent. The
data collection procedures (qualitative and quantitative) were tested with pilot stud-
ies. All data provided by the students were anonymized.

5.2 Procedure

The context of the study is a mixed-methods course at the authors’ university. The
course covers various fundamental positions in the theory of science, as well as the
application of different research methods, and comprises a total of 5 ECTS cred-
its. To develop the learning content of the research module in a sustainable way
and promote students’ SRL, the course was designed as a Flipped Classroom. In
this way, the students were guided to manage their learning process independently,
take responsibility for their learning, and that of the entire learning group. Addi-
tionally, they were encouraged to develop the seminar content on their initiative,
plan their approach independently, and had the opportunity to actively participate
in the course’s design. The methods course was structured for students to listen to

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17775

Fig. 4  Getting a new task by

studybuddy

a podcast weekly over a 12-week period in preparation for the seminar session and
read a text. They were also required to complete a chapter test each week. During the
face-to-face session, the prepared content was discussed in groups, and the results of
the chapter test were reviewed. As part of the seminar, students were asked to install
the “studybuddy” app that the authors developed, which provided them with various
weekly prompts. The course followed the same format each week:

13
17776 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Fig. 5  Weekly reflection on SRL

After each class, students were notified that new tasks awaited them (Fig. 4). The
students were then asked to review the tasks for the upcoming week and confirm
their understanding by clicking the “Ok, I have an overview” button in the app.
Once the learners had reviewed the tasks (pre-actional phase), the app prompted
them to reflect on their motivational and emotional state, as well as their metacogni-
tive activity, in relation to the upcoming task (Fig. 5). This measured the relevant
data for the pre-actional phase and provided it to studybuddy.
If a student did not exceed a specific threshold, the app automatically prompted
them with an appropriate regulation strategy. For instance, in the context of the
task’s value, learners were asked: “How useful do you think this type of task is?”. If
the student ticked one of the four lowest values (“not at all”, “barely”, “rather not”,
or “rather”) on the 6-point Likert scale, a regulation strategy was automatically sug-
gested (Fig. 6).
Along with the push message, a notice also appeared in the digital tool (Fig. 7),
encouraging learners to begin working on their tasks and unlocking a button that
they could press after completing the assignments to indicate their completion.
After completing their weekly tasks, which included literature study, podcasts, a
learning journal and chapter tests, students could click on the “Task completed” but-
ton in the digital tool. Following the completion of their tasks (post-actional phase),
students were then asked to reflect on their cognitive and metacognitive activities,
as well as their emotional and motivational state in relation to the completed tasks.
This measured the relevant data for the post-actional phase and provided it to study-
buddy. Again, if a student did not exceed a specific threshold, the app automatically
prompted them with an appropriate regulation strategy (see Fig. 8).

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17777

Fig. 6  Getting a new strategy suggestion by studybuddy (pre-actional)

Fig. 7  Working on upcoming task

13
17778 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Fig. 8  Getting a new strategy suggestion by studybuddy (post-actional)

Fig. 9  Successful completion of task

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17779

Fig. 10  Consulting the strategy collection

In addition to this push message, the digital tool displayed the message that all
tasks had now been successfully completed (Fig. 9).
Students were also encouraged to consult the strategy collection as needed,
such as when personal strategies were not provided that week, when the strategies
provided were not helpful, or when unforeseen challenges arose during learning
(Fig. 10).
At the same time, learners were informed that studybuddy displays informa-
tion from two questionnaires (completed before and after solving the task) in the
app’s dashboard under “learning process”. This allowed learners to easily monitor
their progress in areas such as cognitive and metacognitive regulation, emotional
and motivational state, and resource management at any time. Additionally, students
could view their chapter test results and current overall score (Fig. 11).

5.3 Measures

5.3.1 Quantitative measures

Throughout a 9-week period, a set of single items was used in a weekly questionnaire,
which has been reported to have adequate psychometric properties and can serve as a
suitable alternative to long scales when they are not applicable (Gogol et al., 2014). A
time unit consisted of one week, during which students could independently choose
when and how long they wanted to spend on the preparation (pre-actional), execu-
tion (actional), and follow-up (post-actional) of the tasks. The quantitative meas-
urements were taken at the beginning of the pre-actional phase and the end of the
post-actional phase (for details, see Chapter 5.2). Appendix B gives an overview of
the measures that were collected before and after studying. All items were adopted

13
17780 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Fig. 11  Studybuddy dashboard

from established dispositional questionnaires. For accuracy, we selected the items

that best represented each scale (based on the criteria “face validity” and “convergent
validity”; Allen et al., 2022; Goetz et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2015, 2020; Schmitz
& Wiese, 2006) and had been used in our previous research (Mejeh & Held, 2022).
We assessed the reliability of the measurements for each item by computing sepa-
rate means for odd and even weeks (split-half reliability) and then correlating these
means across subjects (Liborius et al., 2019; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006; Theobald &
Bellhäuser, 2022). The split-half coefficient for each variable is reported in paren-
theses in Table 1 and 2. The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies was meas-
ured using one item each, specifically for the subscales of Planning, Monitoring, and
Organization in the “Inventory for the Measurement of Learning Strategies in Aca-
demic Studies” (LIST; Wild & Schiefele, 1994). To measure motivation, we used the
On-Line Motivation Questionnaire (OMQ; Boekaerts, 2002) and included two items
for each of the constructs: subjective competence (self-efficacy), personal relevance
(task-value), and learning intention (goal-orientation). Finally, emotional state was
captured using one item each from the enjoyment and anger scales of the “Achieve-
ment Emotion Questionnaire” (AEQ; Pekrun et al., 2005). All items were rated on a
6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much).

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17781

Table 1  Means, standard deviations, correlations with confidence intervals, and reliabilities of the vari-
ables (pre-actional)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Planning 4.43 0.86 (0.95)

2. Subjective 4.19 0.61 .23** (0.93)
competence
[.12, .34]
3. Personal relevance 4.53 0.74 .53** .38** (0.97)
[.44, .62] [.27, .48]
4. Learning intention 4.24 0.80 .47** .40** .65** (0.96)
[.37, .56] [.29, .50] [.58, .72]
5. Enjoyment 3.58 0.94 .31** .50** .42** .38** (0.95)
[.19, .42] [.40, .58] [.31, .52] [.27, .48]
6. Anger 3.13 0.99 -.18** -.39** -.36** -.21** -.47**
[-.31, [-.49, [-.47, [-.33, [-.56, (0.65)
-.05] -.27] -.25] -.08] -.36]

M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indi-
cate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05., ** indicates p < .01. Split-half
reliability is displayed in parentheses on the diagonal

Table 2  Means, standard deviations, correlations with confidence intervals, and reliabilities of the vari-
ables (post-actional)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Enjoyment 3.58 0.93 (0.95)

2. Anger 3.17 1.01 -.38**
[-.49, -.27] (0.79)
3. Monitoring 4.14 1.04 .26** .07 (0.94)
[.13, .37] [-.07, .20]
4. Planning 4.12 1.32 .16* .09 .55**
[.03, .28] [-.05, .22] [.45, .63] (0.93)

M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indi-
cate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. Split-half
reliability is displayed in parentheses on the diagonal

5.3.2 Qualitative measures

In consideration of the cyclical nature of feedback a media-assisted remind aloud

interview (Knorr, 2013) as a subversion of the stimulated recall method was conducted
twice with the selected students (n = 6) to collect recollections of thoughts and actions
that had already taken place during the handling of feedback provided by studybuddy.
Students were prompted to speak out any thoughts they had upon receiving feedback
during the week. As the use of media can serve a supportive function in relation to the
remembering process (Henderson & Tallman, 2006), students were provided with a
comprehensive overview of the weekly feedback course, with each feedback presented
in its original output format and accompanied by a brief situating text. Everything was

13
17782 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

presented in the form of a PowerPoint presentation to the students. The recall process
was intentionally kept unstructured to encourage participants to express their thoughts.
In this way, they were able to recall and verbalize the thoughts they had while receiv-
ing, using, and dealing with the feedback. To promote the recollection of action-justi-
fying statements, direct inquiries were made about participants’ specific thoughts dur-
ing the feedback activity (see Appendix B) (Knorr, 2013). Students were informed in
advance about the scientific purpose of the verbal data, and the data material is avail-
able in the form of audio or video files (screen recording).

5.4 Data analysis

5.4.1 Quantitative Analysis

We used hierarchical linear modeling to analyze the data, which allowed to differen-
tiate between within-subject and between-subject effects. Additionally, this approach
accommodated multiple observations per person, different numbers of observations
between participants, and non-equidistant times of measurements, while providing
model estimates for missing data. Therefore, a sample size of N = 33 students corre-
sponds to having 33 upper-level units in a multilevel design, which is acceptable for
the present study, as demonstrated by previous research (Martin et al., 2015), despite
being small for single-level designs.
To explore the development and the relation of the variables, a baseline
model (model 1) was fitted, which contained only the intercept. Next, a random
intercept model was fitted, which included the varying of intercepts across stu-
dents and time as predictor (model 2). To account for individual differences,
random intercepts and random slopes were incorporated in the analysis, allow-
ing for variation in intercepts and slopes across students (model 3). In model 4,
we included motivational and emotional time-varying variables as predictors to
estimate metacognitive activity during the pre- and post-actional phases. To test
our hypotheses, we used one-sided tests and set significance levels at 0.05 for
all analyses. All linear mixed-effect models were run using the nlme package
(v3.1.162; Pinheiro et al., 2023).
Missing data is a prevalent issue in longitudinal studies, particularly with more
frequent measurements. To address missing data, we performed a maximum like-
lihood estimation (Allison, 2010; Pratama et al., 2016; Schafer & Graham, 2002;
Velicer & Colby, 2005). In our study, missing data occurred due to voluntary par-
ticipation and absences caused by illness during the survey period. The number of
missing values on the dependent variables ranged between 1.4% and 18.5% and on
average 94% of the students were filling out the weekly questionnaire. All analyses
were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2023).

5.4.2 Qualitative analysis

A qualitative content analysis using a structuring content analysis approach (May-

ring, 2015) was conducted focusing on the perceptions and actions described by the

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17783

students in response to feedback provided by studybuddy. The audio material was

transcribed according to Fuss and Karbach’s (2014) rules. It was transcribed ver-
batim with minor language editing. To ensure the anonymity of the participating
students, a unique code was assigned to each participant. The assigned codes did
not reveal the identity of the individual participants but enabled the assignment of a
person to a statement.
The data was categorized theory based using Schmitz’s (2001) process model of
self-regulated learning, with the main thematic categories: situational conditions,
task, emotions, goals, motivation, planned strategy deployment (pre-actional phase);
learning strategies / volition, time, monitoring, performance (actional phase) and
evaluation / reflection / comparison, emotions, strategy modification, goal modifica-
tion (post-actional phase). An additional category of “well-being” was inductively
added to the categories in the pre-actional phase based on frequent mentions in the
data (Mayring, 2015). The full category system can be found in Appendix C. Each
sentence unit was coded per occurrence of a condition, and both interpretations,
evaluative statements, or understanding of content were included in the analysis.
A text segment could be assigned to a code more than once. The software MAX-
QDA was used for the coding process. To ensure intersubjective comprehensibility,
the first and second author conducted and discussed the coding of two interviews
together (Kuckartz, 2018). In addition, an inter-rater reliability for the two inter-
views was calculated, which can be considered as good with a resulting kappa value
of 0.82 (Döring & Bortz, 2016).

6 Results

In the following section, we present both quantitative and qualitative results in a

side-by-side comparison (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2018). We follow the order of
the quantitative questions and provide matching qualitative findings immediately
following the quantitative results for each question. The qualitative results collected
for the actional phase will be allocated to either the pre-actional or post-actional
phases based on the relevance and alignment of the content.

6.1 Descriptive statistics

Tables 1 and 2 display the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabili-
ties (in parentheses) for the variables in both the pre- and post-actional phases. As
expected, all variables showed significant correlations in the expected direction
across measurement points.
In the pre-actional questionnaire, students reported their levels of enjoyment
(ICC = 58%), anger (ICC = 36%), subjective competence (ICC = 40%), learning
intentions (ICC = 63%), personal relevance (ICC = 63%), and planning strategies
(ICC = 55%) for the upcoming task. In the post-actional questionnaire, students

13
17784 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

reported their levels of enjoyment (ICC = 47%), anger (ICC = 25%), monitoring
(ICC = 55%), and organization (ICC = 57%). While the explained variance varies
across variables, we can assume relatively equal variance explanation both between
and within individuals (i.e., between weeks) in principle.

6.2 Weekly development of SRL

To investigate the development of task-related (meta-)cognitive, motivational, and

emotional aspects of learners’ SRL, separate linear mixed models were conducted
(H1a, H2a). The model parameters are listed in Table 3 and 4, and the goodness-of-
fit for linear changes in all variables studied is listed in Appendix D. The following
results refer to the best fitting model (bold marked in Tables D1-D5 in Appendix
D1).

6.3 During pre‑actional phase

To test the first hypothesis (H1a), separate multilevel models were conducted. The
results indicated that during the pre-actional phase, there was a significant increase
in the subject competence of the students (b = 0.11, t(241) = 2.26, p = 0.02). Con-
versely, the personal relevance of the task significantly decreased (b = -0.10,
t(237) = -2.62, p = 0.009). Furthermore, the random effects correlation reveals a
moderate positive relationship for subjective competence, whereas only a minimal
negative relationship is observed for personal relevance. There were no significant
effects of time found for the remaining variables, including planning, learning inten-
tion, enjoyment, and anger.
The qualitative analysis revealed that positive feedback in the pre-actional phase
can help alleviate students’ anxiety and uncertainty about the likelihood of success
with upcoming tasks, leading to increased self-efficacy. For example, one student
reports an increase in her sense of competence through strategy feedback, realizing
that she already has a broad repertoire of learning and work strategies. Feedback in
the form of results, such as the dashboard display, provides learners with an indica-
tion of how well they can handle assigned tasks. However, different types of feed-
back can also cause confusion, especially if they conflict with self-formulated goals
and deviate from them. In such cases, feedback helps students rethink and adjust
their expectations and goals:
And uh yeah, if it then shows something completely different than how I felt or
how I personally felt, then I also think about uh what do I have to do there or why
are these discrepancies there and what does that mean for the next week or for the
next time. (S4_1).
Additionally, the analysis suggests that students with a high degree of self-effi-
cacy and confidence in their abilities tend to pay less attention to external feedback

1
We also tested for underestimation of within-subject variability by estimating models that explicitly
accounted for autocorrelation. However, incorporating autocorrelation did not improve our model esti-
mates, and therefore, we only reported the models without autocorrelation in the manuscript.

13
 Table 3  Weekly development of the SRL components (pre-actional)
Planning Subjective competence Personal relevance Learning intention Enjoyment Anger
Predictors B β B β B β B β B β B β

Intercept 4.45 *** -.06 4.08 *** .01 4.62 *** -.07 4.17 *** -.05 3.51 *** -.06 3.07 *** -.04
* *
Time -.01 -.04 .03 .11 -.03 -.10 .01 .02 .00 .01 .01 .03
Random Effects
σ2 .31 .21 .18 .19 .42 .74
τ00 .45 code .07 code .37 code .53 code .27 code .12 code
τ11 .00 [Link] .00 [Link] .00 [Link] .01 [Link] .01 [Link] .00 [Link]
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

ρ01 -.24 code .50 code -.01 code -.45 code -.01 code .45 code
N 33 code 33 code 33 code 33 code 32 code 31 code
Marginal ­R2 / .001 / .600 .011 / .446 .009 / .704 .000 / .712 .000 / .530 .001 / .270
Conditional ­R2

* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001. 95% confidence intervals of standardized beta coefficient in parentheses. σ2 indicates the residual variance.
τ00 indicates the variance of the intercepts. τ11 indicates random slope variance. ρ01 indicates random slope intercept correlation
17785

13
17786 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Table 4  Weekly development of the SRL components (post-actional)

Monitoring Organisation Enjoyment Anger
Predictors B β B β B β B β

Intercept 4.03*** -.09 4.19 *** -0.15 3.53 *** -0.04 3.07 *** -0.06
*
Time .00 .01 -0.06 -0.11 0.00 0.01 -0.00 -0.00
Random Effects
σ2 .49 .74 .38 .64
τ00 .65 code 1.21 code .52 code .36 code
N 33 code 33 code 32 code 31 code
­ 2/
Marginal R .000 / .569 0.010 / 0.626 0.000 / 0.578 .000 / .359
Conditional
­R2

* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001. 95% confidence intervals of standardized
beta coefficient in parentheses. σ2 indicates the residual variance. τ00 indicates the variance of the inter-
cepts

while learners who struggle to adapt their learning without external assistance or
have doubts about their own abilities may actively seek support and be more recep-
tive to feedback.
The integration of feedback from the pre-actional phase into students’ actional
practice during the actional phase is mirrored in their responsiveness to study-
buddy’s feedback. This responsiveness can guide them to take immediate concrete
actions, such as completing tasks, submitting evaluations, writing reviews, or sched-
uling appointments with other group members. Specifically, push notifications from
studybuddy seem to play a crucial role in directing students’ attention while working
on weekly tasks. It was reported that push notifications can effectively capture learn-
ers’ attention and generate interest in specific tasks. For instance, one participant
promptly checks her learning journal entries against the model solution after receiv-
ing a push notification. Another student highlights the significance of continuous
feedback from study buddy in helping her stay on track throughout the semester:
Um well, it actually influenced me in the sense that when it was mentioned that
the new tasks and the new learning journal had been released. So, when I received
this feedback, I usually downloaded the text right away and got an overview or also
inserted the new tasks from the learning journal into our group document. (S4_2).

6.4 During post‑actional phase

To test the second hypothesis (H2a), the multilevel models were used to examine the
effects of time after task processing in the post-actional phase. The results showed
partially significant effects. Specifically, the organization of the students signifi-
cantly decreased (b = -0.11, t(203) = -2.45, p = 0.02), but only when the slopes were
fixed in the models. No significant effects of time were found for the remaining vari-
ables, including monitoring, enjoyment, and anger.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17787

The qualitative results in the post-actional phase suggest, that if evaluation-based

feedback is poor (e.g., results of chapter tests), it can serve as motivation to examine
the feedback more closely in the new week, especially strategy feedback. Furthermore,
feedback (especially suggested strategies) seems to trigger memory processes in stu-
dents, enabling students to recall previously internalized learning behaviors. It is also
reported that the use of the proposed strategies has a direct impact on the effective
use of strategies in solving tasks. Some learners remember an input from the strategy
feedback while solving tasks and use it as inspiration for a potential approach. Others
report that they were able to expand their passive strategy repertoire through feedback
from studybuddy, and that the strategy suggestions served as a motivational boost to
think about their own strategies and reflect on their strategy use:
Um so I watch it and then the first thing I think about each time is um if I already
know the strategy so if I already have it somewhere in my repertoire. There were so
many, numerous strategies prompted and if it served as inspiration then it certainly
achieved the goal. So that I have then again thought about the learning path. (S5_1).
However, interest in the suggested strategies seems to decrease towards the end
of the semester. The students cite reasons such as habituation, repetition of the same
strategy suggestions, already known strategies, too low cognitive activation from the
strategies, or technical problems with the tool. Participants also highlighted posi-
tive effects on their well-being: When they receive feedback confirming they have
achieved what was planned for the previous week, they feel good and start the new
week with a positive mindset. In addition, by displaying learning-related variables in
the dashboard, students were able to continuously analyze their own learning. The
possibility of testing and evaluating their own learning at regular intervals was per-
ceived as very helpful.
Overall, regarding the development of learners’ SRL, hypothesis H1a—that an
increase in subjective competence, personal relevance, learning intention, and
enjoyment, as well as a decrease in anger, would occur—can only be partially
accepted. While there was a significant increase in subjective competence, there
were no expected effects for the other variables, and even a significant decrease in
personal relevance of the task. Similarly, hypothesis H2a—that an increase in enjoy-
ment, monitoring, and organization, as well as a decrease in anger, would occur—
has to be rejected, as we found no expected effects and even a significant decrease in
organization.

6.5 Predicting metacognitive activity based on motivational and emotional state

To test our hypotheses on metacognitive activity during the pre-actional (planning)

and post-actional (monitoring) phase, we performed multilevel analyses with per-
sons on level 2 and days within persons on level 1. To test the hypothesis regarding
the prediction of planning over time in the pre-actional phase (within-person, level
1), we stepwise added the predictors subjective competence, personal relevance,
learning intention, enjoyment, and anger (H2a). Similarly, to predict monitoring and
organization in the post-actional phase, we stepwise added the variables enjoyment
and anger (H2b). Results are reported in Table 5, 6, and 7.

13
 Table 5  Planning based on motivational and emotional state (pre-actional)
17788

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Predictors B β B β B β B β B β B β B β

13
Intercept 4.39*** -.05 4.45*** -.06 3.73*** -.07 2.55*** -.03 2.24*** -.01 2.66*** .02 1.87** .05
Time -.01 -.04 -.01 -.04 -.00 -.00 -.00 -.02 -.00 -.01 .01 .05
Subjective competence .17 .12 .02 .02 -.01 -.00 -.11 -.11 -.07 -.08
Personal relevance .39*** .30 .28** .20 .23 * .13 .29** .23
Learning intention .22** .24 .15 .17 .12 .14
Enjoyment .16* .22 .23** .27
Anger .08 .06
Random Effects
σ2 .33 .31 .29 .29 .28 .26 .26
τ00 .43 code .45 code 2.08 code .52 code .56 code .46 code .36 code
.07 [Link] .02 [Link] .02 [Link] .02 [Link] .01 [Link]
.01 [Link] .01 [Link] .02 [Link] .02 [Link]
.01 [Link] .02 [Link] .02 [Link]
.01 [Link] .01 [Link]
.01 [Link]
τ11 .00 [Link] .00 code. time .00 [Link] .00 [Link] .00 [Link] .00 [Link]
ρ01 -.24 code -.34 -.29 -.34 -.39 -.48
-.88 -.09 -.01 -.23 -.19
-.59 -.56 -.57 -.45
-.15 .32 .04
-.23 .15
.18
N 33 code 33 code 33 code 33 code 33 code 32 code 31 code
Marginal ­R2 / Conditional ­R2 .000 / 0.564 .001 / 0.600 .014 / 0.619 .124 / 0.537 .181 / 0.563 .159 / 0.564 .201 / 0.601
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805
 Table 5  (continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Predictors B β B β B β B β B β B β B β

AIC 542.751 545.332 540.471 529.855 526.819 508.395 465.512

2
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001. 95% confidence intervals of standardized beta coefficient in parentheses. σ indicates the residual variance.
τ00 indicates the variance of the intercepts. τ11 indicates random slope variance. ρ01 indicates random slope intercept correlation
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805
17789

13
17790 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Table 6  Organization based on motivational and emotional state (post-actional)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Predictors B β B β B β B β

Intercept 3.94*** -.14 4.19*** -.15 3.76*** -.11 3.17*** -.07

* **
Time -.06 -.11 -.06 -.12 -.06* -.11
Enjoyment .15 .11 .20* .15
Anger .14 .11
Random Effects
σ2 .76 .74 0.73 .78
τ00 1.14 code 1.21 code 1.02 code .92 code
­ 2/
Marginal R .000 / .600 .010 / .626 .024 / .593 .030 / .556
Conditional
­R2
AIC 693.459 689.563 664.944 613.770

* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001. 95% confidence intervals of standardized
beta coefficient in parentheses. σ2 indicates the residual variance. τ00 indicates the variance of the inter-
cepts

6.6 Positive motivational and emotional states: Catalysts for effective planning

activity

During the pre-actional phase, personal relevance of tasks (b = 0.23, t(181) = 3.00,
p = 0.003) and task enjoyment (b = 0.27, t(181) = 3.09, p = 0.002) were found to pre-
dict higher planning activity. Interestingly, including anger about the task as a pre-
dictor made the significant association of learning intention disappear. Furthermore,
the random effects correlation reveals a moderate negative relationship for personal
relevance, whereas only a minimal positive relationship is observed for enjoyment.
The results of the interviews suggest that feedback plays an important role as a
guide for students’ planning work. The various feedback provided by studybuddy
can motivate students to set their own goals and commit to future learning and work
processes. The push notification sent at the beginning of the week, informing learn-
ers about upcoming tasks, can be viewed as a symbolic start to a new learning and
working week. This notification can play a crucial role in assisting learners in estab-
lishing appropriate goals for their learning endeavors.
So, I actually find the, how should I say, the procedure how the whole thing is
carried out with the um first get an overview, I actually find this very good because
um on the one hand I have the feeling the first impression is important and on the
other hand you can um also plan the time a little. Um how do I want to approach this
text now, for example? How do I want uh or when do I want to listen to the podcast?
How long do the podcasts last? (S1_2).
Moreover, feedback during the pre-actional phase can trigger concrete actions,
such as breaking down tasks into smaller sub-tasks, setting timeframes for com-
pleting tasks, or choosing approaches for specific tasks. It even seems likely that
the structured form of feedback forces learners to think positively about what they

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17791

Table 7  Monitoring based on motivational and emotional state (post-actional)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model4
Predictors B β B β B β B β

Intercept 4.05 ***

-.09 4.03 ***
-.09 3.62 ***
-.03 3.28 ***
-.03
Time .00
.01 .00
.01 -.00
-.00
Enjoyment .15 *
*
0.14 0.17
0.16
Anger .09
.09
Random Effects
σ2 .49 .49 .45 .47
τ00 .65 code .65 code .49 code .47 code
­ 2/
Marginal R .000 / .570 .000 / .569 .021 / .528 .024 / .508
Conditional
­R2
AIC 623.985 625.942 575.321 528.858

* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001. 95% confidence intervals of standardized
beta coefficient in parentheses
σ2 indicates the residual variance. τ00 indicates the variance of the intercepts

will do in the coming learning and working process. Beyond the concrete initiation
of actions, feedback through a digital tool can serve as an incentive for individual
goal achievement. In particular, the appearance of the green confirmation box in
combination with the feedback that all tasks for the week are completed can have a
motivating and calming effect. Receiving feedback is described as a kind of positive
pressure that increases motivation to achieve good results.
The strategy suggestions seem particularly helpful in overcoming a lack of
motivation. Whether students utilize different types of feedback for their planning
appears to be influenced by various factors that highlight the individual significance
of feedback. These factors include the frequency of feedback, personal organiza-
tional and strategic learning styles, available time, individual emotions, judgments,
attitudes, beliefs, and convictions. Moreover, the content of the feedback also plays a
crucial role, as repeated feedback often tends to be disregarded:
Yes, at the beginning it was something new and the interest was a bit higher. And
over time, I felt like I got used to it. Then you don’t always look at them specifically
or you skip them or you see: Ah, it’s this again. And then, it’s done. (S1_1).

13
17792 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

6.7 Positive emotional states as basis for successful monitoring and organization

During the post-actional phase, task enjoyment was found to predict higher moni-
toring (b = 0.16, t(183) = 2.30, p = 0.02) and organization (b = 0.15, t(172) = 2.08,
p = 0.004), but only when the slopes were fixed in the models.
In general, it seems likely that different types of feedback trigger reflection pro-
cesses regarding students’ own learning and work. This enables them to retrospec-
tively contemplate and assess their learning journey, identifying factors contributing
to both success and failure. Students report to use the information from different
types of feedback (especially dashboards) as a mirror of self-perception and to mon-
itor their progress. Assessments from different types of feedback often coincide,
which can help the students to better evaluate their own performance. However, it
can also happen that the feedback from studybuddy does not coincide with students’
self-perception. The parameters for evaluating their own learning might be under-
stood differently or feedback might not be sufficiently understandable or comprehen-
sible. The comprehensibility, along with factors such as time, significance, appeal-
ing design, and relevance, is mentioned as a decisive factor for whether the feedback
can stimulate reflection processes. When there is agreement between the feedback
(e.g., chapter test score) and students’ own perception, it seem to trigger satisfaction,
whereas poor and/or non-coinciding feedback (e.g., a decreasing learning curve in
the dashboard or strategy recommendations that do not match their experiences) can
lead to frustration, disappointment, uncertainty, lack of motivation, or surprise. The
way feedback is presented can also influence students’ affective reaction to it.
But on the other hand, I was also a bit unsure whether my working and learning
behavior was particularly suitable for recommending strategies to me. Um, that’s
more of an interpersonal thing. Yes, that triggered more uncertainty in me. (S5_2).
With positive feedback, fewer efforts seem to be made to explore the reasons for
it, and the direct application or implementation of the feedback may be less pro-
nounced. In general, the qualitative analyses suggest that feedback through study-
buddy either led to an immediate adjustment of learning and working behavior, or
the feedback could not be integrated into the learning process after receipt.
I found the impulses very useful, and they were good learning stimuli. It made
me reflect on my own learning process. But then I also asked myself if maybe more
space could be given to it. Or with the app, I thought it was really cool, but some-
times I didn’t have the strategy on my phone I’d need. Or I didn’t know that it was so
specific. I just always went to look at it when I was finished. So, I think there could
definitely be some room for improvement. But I think the idea is very good and I
appreciate the motivation to link it to learning strategies. (S2_2).
Overall, our findings partially support both hypotheses (H1b, H2b) regarding the
prediction of (meta-)cognitive regulation among learners. Task relevance and enjoy-
ment were found to have a significant association with upcoming tasks, while enjoy-
ment as a positive emotional state was found to have a significant association with
completed tasks.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17793

7 Discussion

Our mixed-method study aimed at contribution to a better understanding of the SRL

process in a digital learning setting in higher education. We implemented an ALT
called studybuddy in a method course and followed the students over one semester.
Aiming at a synthesis and interpretation of our results, we will integrate our quan-
titative and qualitative findings and discuss whether and how we can draw a meta-
inference based on them (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2018).

7.1 Enhancing SRL through an ALT during the pre‑actional phase

With our first quantitative research question, we investigated how SRL develops in
the pre-actional phase through the support of an ALT. We also examined how stu-
dents’ planning can be predicted by their motivational and emotional states. Quali-
tatively, we studied how learners perceive feedback in the pre-actional phase and
integrate it into their learning actions.

7.1.1 The role of task‑related enjoyment and personalized feedback

Qualitative and quantitative results converged in that task-related enjoyment is an

important prerequisite for pre-actional planning. Specifically, students seem moti-
vated to solve upcoming tasks by anticipating the outcome, which is perceived as
positive feedback even before task completion (indicated by a “green light” from the
digital tool). This feedback shows a calming effect on students, consistent with other
findings in feedback on SRL research literature (Grawemeyer et al., 2017; Rowe,
2011). Also, the decreasing trend of task relevance that was found in the quanti-
tative data was confirmed in the qualitative research strand. Interviews highlighted
the need for personalized feedback to prevent overwhelming students with different
feedback from an ALT, which can affect the relevance of upcoming tasks. The inter-
views also revealed that some students receive excessive support from the tool even
when they require less, emphasizing the importance of tailored feedback through
educational technologies (Forsyth et al., 2016; Matcha et al., 2019; Tempelaar,
2020; Tsai et al., 2020). However, the negative trend of task relevance may also be
attributed to the learning environment, providing important insights into how tasks
should be designed in an SRL-conducive environment. It is possible that the tasks
lacked variability or that learners did not understand the significance of the tasks
(Broadbent, 2017; Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Jia et al., 2023; Perry et al., 2020).
While some results may converge, others require differentiation. For instance,
while our qualitative results suggest that the digital tool effectively supports students
with low SRL skills, it also reveals that students with higher SRL skills may overes-
timate their SRL abilities (Dörrenbacher & Perels, 2016; Peverly et al., 2003). This
issue has been discussed in detail in relation to capturing SRL processes and rely-
ing on self-reported data (Azevedo & Gašević, 2019; Dijkstra et al., 2023; Winne,
2022; Winne & Perry, 2000). Furthermore, quantitative data shows a decrease in

13
17794 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

task relevance over time, while qualitative interviews suggests that task relevance
is maintained when the digital tool is actively utilized, such as when retrieving sug-
gested strategies. While digital tools like studybuddy can greatly assist learners in
focusing their attention on tasks (Chen & Huang, 2014; Verbert et al., 2013), it is
important to note that the appropriate acceptance of digital technology in educa-
tional settings by users is crucial, as discussed in the Technology Acceptance Model
(Marangunić & Granić, 2015). Thus, fostering learners’ digital literacy seems essen-
tial in addressing this challenge, which again requires developing metacognitive,
resource management, and motivational strategies accordingly (Anthonysamy et al.,
2020).

7.1.2 Predicting planning activity: Interindividual differences in motivation

and emotion

The results from the two strands of methods revealed different insights regarding
the role of learning intention during the pre-actional phase on planning. The mul-
tilevel models did not demonstrate any significant effects of learning intention on
planning and the interviews revealed a more nuanced explanation for this finding.
Specifically, the push messages of the digital tool seem to have varying effects on
different students, indicating interindividual differences. Again, this highlights the
importance of designing and using learning technology in an adaptive and personal-
ized way (Broadbent & Poon, 2015). This finding is further supported by the result
that the notifications seemed to act as a trigger for some learners but not for oth-
ers, emphasizing the importance of taking individual differences in learning into
account.
Additionally, interindividual differences, and consequently the role played by the
digital tool in students’ learning process, are reflected in the various random-slope
intercept correlations. The correlation for personal relevance demonstrates a nega-
tive relationship, suggesting that learners who perceive high personal relevance in
the tasks are more likely to benefit from the tool. Conversely, for enjoyment and
subjective competence, the opposite holds true: learners with higher initial levels
in these areas appear to receive more support from the digital tool.2 Moreover, the
statistical effect of learning intention as a goal orientation diminished when anger
was added to the model, emphasizing the significant interplay between emotions and
motivations for SRL (Azevedo et al., 2017; Duffy & Azevedo, 2015; Mega et al.,
2014; Moos & Azevedo, 2008). Similarly, while no associations were found in the
quantitative data, the students reported that positive feedback can reduce anxiety and
uncertainty about their likelihood of success on upcoming tasks, and increase their
self-efficacy. This report is for example consistent with the findings of Núñez-Peña
et al. (2015) who were able to show that perceived usefulness of feedback reduced
the negative impact of anxiety on students’ academic achievement.

2
For a complementary eye test, we have attached the respective plots in Appendix D (Figures D1 &
D2).

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17795

7.2 Enhancing SRL through an ALT during the post‑actional phase

In our second quantitative research question, we investigated how SRL develops in

the post-actional phase through the support of ALT. We also examined how stu-
dents’ monitoring and organization can be predicted by their emotional states. Qual-
itatively, we studied how learners perceive feedback in the actional as well as post-
actional phase.

7.2.1 The role of enjoyment in successful monitoring

In the post-actional phase it appeared that students monitored their learning less
as time passed, but stimulated recall procedures indicated that students monitored
more when they received negative feedback. While this discrepancy could be due to
the fact that reactions to negative feedback are more pronounced, and that positive
feedback may be more challenging for students to handle, it could also suggest that
students need support in learning how to effectively use and respond to feedback,
regardless of its nature (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Theobald & Bellhäuser, 2022).
This finding is corroborated by the result that the negative association of time with
monitoring dissipates when considering the distinct developmental trajectories of
the students, as random slopes could not be modeled in this case. Furthermore, task-
related enjoyment is positively associated with monitoring. Students indicated that
feedback from the digital tool consistently stimulated reflective processes regard-
ing their own learning and work behaviors. These qualitative findings align with the
result that task-related enjoyment predicts increased student monitoring. It becomes
apparent that the relationship between task setting and strategy utilization must be
well-aligned, underscoring the importance of providing students with the opportu-
nity to actively apply the strategies they have acquired in order to solve tasks. Thus,
the relevance of a learning environment conducive to SRL, in which learners are
also active agents in their learning process, becomes evident (Corno, 2008; Karlen
et al., 2020).

7.2.2 The importance of active digital tool use

Although the quantitative analyses did not show any significant development of
emotional and motivational variables over time, students reported in interviews that
feedback from the digital tool on a completed task fostered positive feelings. The
qualitative analyses revealed that students needed to actively use the digital tool
dashboard to experience task-specific enjoyment in the post-actional phase. This
result is in line with previous findings, which suggest that digital tools can support
metacognitive regulation if they are actively used and if the feedback can be directly
incorporated by the learners into their current learning process (Long & Aleven,
2013; Molenaar et al., 2021; Verbert et al., 2013). Simultaneously, students report
that the feedback must be useful and correspond with their self-perception, which
is consistent with current research findings (e.g., Lim et al., 2020). In this context,
negative emotions such as anger can arise when the feedback is perceived as bad
or does not match the self-perception. Moreover, the form in which the feedback is

13
17796 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

presented by the digital tool also seems to be important (Schumacher & Ifenthaler,
2018; Sedrakyan et al., 2020).

8 Implications and limitations

An important theoretical implication from our study is the suitability of the prefab-
ricated learning strategies presented to learners through video in our digital tool. It
is possible that these strategies may not adequately fit the specific learning needs
of individual learners. This issue is consistent with the idea presented by Pammer-
Schindler and colleagues (Pammer-Schindler et al., 2018) that digital platforms
may not be tailored enough to students’ individual needs and abilities, leading to
lower usage. In future, it would be of interest to develop adaptive and personal-
ized approaches that incorporate and process learners’ needs even more effectively
(Park et al., 2022), by for example combining ALTs with natural language process-
ing (Mejeh & Rehm, in press). Methodologically, multilevel models are a valid
approach for capturing individual learning trajectories. In this regard, it could be
highly advantageous in the future to more closely examine single intra-individual
developments and model them with greater specificity. Accordingly, linking nomo-
thetic and ideographic analyses more intensively (Schmitz, 2000), potentially within
the context of learning analytics data (Winne, 2017), could significantly enhance the
further development of the SRL field. Practical implications arise from our study
in that questions of designing SRL-conducive learning environments should be
addressed more strongly in the future. Especially in flipped classroom settings in
higher education, student engagement and active learning could be addressed, e.g.,
through appropriate assignments or group work (Kapur et al., 2022). In addition, it is
crucial to prioritize the needs of both learners and instructors when designing ALTs.
This can be accomplished through participatory research approaches that actively
involve users in the development of educational technology. In our study, managing
the triad of research, users, and IT development proved challenging, necessitating
constant translation processes between the different levels. To guard against undesir-
able outcomes or failures, it is advisable to conduct multiple pilot tests and valida-
tion loops with the ALTs before the actual study.
Also, some limitations of our study must be taken into account. First, the study
design can be criticized for lacking a control group, which precludes making
definitive claims about the effect of the digital tool. While some SRL variables
in our study showed expected development over time and interviews indicated the
effectiveness of the digital tool, we cannot attribute the observed effects exclu-
sively to studybuddy. Furthermore, the small sample size limits the statistical
power of the study, although different developments in learners were observed.
However, due to limitations in model specification, more complex models with
random slopes could only be partially implemented. As a result, we had to inter-
pret the models with fixed slopes. Therefore, our study should be regarded as
exploratory, and future research with control groups and larger sample sizes
will be necessary to specify more complex models and increase the explanatory
power for the effects of the digital tool. Secondly, the validity of self-reports can

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17797

be questioned, and one possible solution is to supplement them with other data
based on learning analytics to obtain multimodal perspectives (Greene et al.,
2021; Järvelä & Bannert, 2021; Molenaar et al., 2021). Nevertheless, self-reports
can provide important insights for SRL development, especially when combined
in qualitative and quantitative analyses (McCardle & Hadwin, 2015; Mejeh et al.,
2023). A further limitation concerns the delivery of SRL strategies, which cur-
rently rely on a relatively simple metric (i.e., learners failing to reach a certain
threshold on a 6-point Likert scale). To enhance the delivery of SRL strategies, it
would be beneficial to incorporate additional data based on learning analytics for
diagnosis in the future (Azevedo & Gašević, 2019).
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at [Link]
org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​024-​12510-8.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Stefan Kodzhabashev of the Technology Platform
for Research (TPF) at the University of Bern.

Credit authorship contribution Mathias Mejeh – Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis

(quantitative + qualitative), Investigation (quantitative), Writing – Original Draft, Funding Acquisition.
Livia Sarbach – Formal Analysis (qualitative), Investigation (qualitative), Writing – Review & Editing.
Tina Hascher – Writing - Review & Editing.

Funding Open access funding provided by University of Bern.

Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author, [MM], upon reasonable request.

Declarations
Declaration of interest This work was supported by a university research grant from the University of
Bern, Switzerland and the Swiss National Science Foundation [IZSEZO_2O5893/1].

Conflict of interest There is no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit [Link]
licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2017). Instruction based on adaptive
learning technologies. In R. E. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning
and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 522–560). Routledge.

13
17798 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Ali, L., Hatala, M., Gašević, D., & Jovanović, J. (2012). A qualitative evaluation of evolution of a learn-
ing analytics tool. Computers & Education, 58(1), 470–489. [Link]
2011.​08.​030
Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science: A call to
action. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. [Link]
5759/​a0006​99
Allison, P. D. (2010). Missing data. In P. V. Marsden & J. D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research
(2nd ed., pp. 631–657). Academic Press. [Link]
resea​rch/​rossi/​978-0-​12-​598226-9.
Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A. C., & Hew, S. H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies in higher educa-
tion: Fostering digital literacy for sustainable lifelong learning. Education and Information Tech-
nologies, 25(4), 2393–2414. [Link]
Azevedo, R., & Gašević, D. (2019). Analyzing multimodal multichannel data about self-regulated learn-
ing with advanced learning technologies: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior,
96, 207–210. [Link]
Azevedo, R., Millar, G. C., Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Bradbury, A. E., & Price, M. J. (2017). Using data
visualizations to foster emotion regulation during self-regulated learning with advanced learning
technologies: A conceptual framework. In A. Wise, Ph. H. Winne, G. Lynch, X. Ochoa, I. Mole-
naar, S. Dawson, M. Hatala (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international learning analytics &
knowledge conference (pp. 444–448). [Link]
Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In J. A. Larus-
son & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: From research to practice. Springer. [Link]
1007/​978-1-​4614-​3305-7_4
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bellhäuser, H., Liborius, P., & Schmitz, B. (2022). Fostering self-regulated learning in online environ-
ments: Positive effects of a web-based training with peer feedback on learning behavior. Frontiers
in Psychology, 13, 813381. [Link]
Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and
educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405–418.
[Link]
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy mak-
ers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186. [Link]
1016/​S0959-​4752(96)​00015-1
Boekaerts, M. (2002). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students’
context sensitivity. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 12, 77–120.
Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In D. H. Schunk
& J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp.
408–425). Routledge.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. [Link]
2012.​691462
Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and aca-
demic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32. [Link]
duc.​2017.​01.​004
Broadbent, J., Panadero, E., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2020a). Effects of mobile-app learning diaries vs
online training on specific self-regulated learning components. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 68(5), 2351–2372. [Link]
Broadbent, J., Panadero, E., Lodge, J. M., & de Barba, P. (2020b). Technologies to enhance self-regulated
learning in online and computer-mediated learning environments. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J.
Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology
(pp. 37–52). Springer. [Link]
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online
higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education,
27, 1–13. [Link]
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning teaching.
Routledge.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17799

Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback
literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 1–14. [Link]
72
Chen, C.-M., & Huang, S.-H. (2014). Web-based reading annotation system with an attention-based self-
regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading performance: Attention-based self-regulated
learning mechanism. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 959–980. [Link]
10.​1111/​bjet.​12119
Chou, C.-Y., & Zou, N.-B. (2020). An analysis of internal and external feedback in self-regulated learn-
ing activities mediated by self-regulated learning tools and open learner models. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 55. [Link]
s41239-​020-​00233-y
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. [Link]
Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. [Link]
1080/​00461​52080​21784​66
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated
learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 15(1), 3–8. [Link]
Davis, S. K., & Hadwin, A. F. (2021). Exploring differences in psychological well-being and self-regu-
lated learning in university student success. Frontline Learning Research, 9(1), 30–43. [Link]
org/​10.​14786/​flr.​v9i1.​581
de Bruijn-Smolders, M., Timmers, C. F., Gawke, J. C. L., Schoonman, W., & Born, MPh. (2016). Effec-
tive self-regulatory processes in higher education: Research findings and future directions. A sys-
tematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 139–158. [Link]
2014.​915302
Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based
learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science edu-
cation: Scaffolding self-regulated learning with CBLES. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
28(6), 557–573. [Link]
Dignath, C., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2021). The role of direct strategy instruction and indirect activation
of self-regulated learning – Evidence from classroom observation studies. Educational Psychology
Review, 33(2), 489–533. [Link]
Dijkstra, S. H. E., Hinne, M., Segers, E., & Molenaar, I. (2023). Clustering children’s learning behaviour
to identify self-regulated learning support needs. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107754.
[Link]
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und -evaluation. Springer.
Dörrenbächer, L., & Perels, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning profiles in college students: Their relation-
ship to achievement, personality, and the effectiveness of an intervention to foster self-regulated
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 229–241. [Link]
09.​015
Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., Weißenfels, M., Russer, L., & Perels, F. (2021). Multimethod assessment of
self-regulated learning in college students: Different methods for different components? Instruc-
tional Science, 49(1), 137–163. [Link]
Duffy, M. C., & Azevedo, R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and
agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in
Human Behavior, 52, 338–348. [Link]
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and
achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). Freeman.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning:
The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. [Link]
2011.​538645
Forsyth, B., Kimble, C., & Birch, J. (2016). Maximizing the adaptive learning technology experience.
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 16(4), 80–88.
Fuss, S., & Karbach, U. (2014). Grundlagen der Transkription: Eine praktische Einführung. Verlag Bar-
bara Budrich.

13
17800 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Garcia, R., Falkner, K., & Vivian, R. (2018). Systematic literature review: Self-regulated learning strate-
gies using e-learning tools for computer science. Computers & Education, 123, 150–163. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2018.​05.​006
Gerholz, K.-H. (2012). Selbstreguliertes Lernen in der Hochschule fördern – Lernkulturen gestalten.
Zeitschrift Für Hochschulentwicklung, 7(3), 60–73. [Link]
Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Nett, U. E., Keller, M. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2013). Characteristics of teaching
and students’ emotions in the classroom: Investigating differences across domains. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 38(4), 383–394. [Link]
Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., Fischbach, A., & Preckel, F. (2014).
“My questionnaire is too long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-
item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205.
Grawemeyer, B., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., Gutiérrez-Santos, S., Wiedmann, M., & Rummel, N.
(2017). Affective learning: Improving engagement and enhancing learning with affect-aware
feedback. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 119–158. [Link]
s11257-​017-​9188-z
Greene, J. A., Plumley, R. D., Urban, C. J., Bernacki, M. L., Gates, K. M., Hogan, K. A., Demetriou, C.,
& Panter, A. T. (2021). Modeling temporal self-regulatory processing in a higher education biol-
ogy course. Learning and Instruction, 72, 101201. [Link]
002
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112. [Link]
Henderson, L., & Tallman, J. I. (2006). Stimulated recall and mental models: tools for teaching and
learning computer information literacy. Scarecrow Press.
Ifenthaler, D., & Drachsler, H. (2018). Learning Analytics. In H. Niegemann & A. Weinberger (Eds.),
Lernen mit Bildungstechnologien: Praxisorientiertes Handbuch zum intelligenten Umgang mit dig-
italen Medien (pp. 1–20). Springer. [Link]
Ifenthaler, D., Schumacher, C., & Sahin, M. (2021). System-based or teacher-based learning analytics
feedback – What works best? In M. Chang, N.-S. Chen, D. G. Sampson, & A. Tlili (Eds.) Proceed-
ing of the 21st international conference of advance learning technologies (pp. 184–186). IEEE.
[Link]
Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., & Kester, L. (2019). Self-regulated learning partially
mediates the effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education:
A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100292. [Link]
100292
Järvelä, S., & Bannert, M. (2021). Temporal and adaptive processes of regulated learning – What can
multimodal data tell? Learning and Instruction, 72, 101268. [Link]
2019.​101268
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 48(1), 25–39. [Link]
Jia, C., Hew, K. F., Jiahui, D., & Liuyufeng, L. (2023). Towards a fully online flipped classroom model to
support student learning outcomes and engagement: A 2-year design-based study. The Internet and
Higher Education, 56, 100878. [Link]
Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., & Specht, M. (2017). Awareness is not enough: Pitfalls of learning
analytics dashboards in the educational practice. In É. Lavoué, H. Drachsler, K. Verbert, J. Broisin,
& M. Pérez-Sanagustín (Eds.), Data driven approaches in digital education (pp. 82–96). Springer.
[Link]
Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., & Sinha, T. (2022). Fail, flip, fix, and feed – Rethinking flipped learn-
ing: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education, 7, 956416.
[Link]
Karlen, Y., Hertel, S., & Hirt, C. N. (2020). Teachers’ professional competences in self-regulated learn-
ing: An approach to integrate teachers’ competences as self-regulated learners and as agents of
self-regulated learning in a holistic manner. Frontiers in Education, 5, 159. [Link]
feduc.​2020.​00159
Kelle, U. (2015). Mixed methods and the problems of theory building and theory testing in the social
sciences. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod
and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 594–605). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfor
dhb/9780199933624.013.36.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17801

Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991).
Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240–245. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​0663.​83.2.​240
Knorr, P. (2013). Zur Differenzierung retrospektiver verbaler Daten: Protokolle Lauten Erinnerns erhe-
ben, verstehen und analysieren. In K. Aguado, L. Heine, & K. Schramm (Eds.), Introspektive Ver-
fahren und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse in der Fremdsprachenforschung. Peter Lang.
Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S.,
Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in massive open online
courses. Computers & Education, 119, 44–58. [Link]
Kuhnel, M., Seiler, L., Honal, A., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Mobile learning analytics in higher education:
Usability testing and evaluation of an app prototype. Interactive Technology and Smart Education,
15(4), 332–347. [Link]
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4th ed.).
Beltz.
Liborius, P., Bellhäuser, H., & Schmitz, B. (2019). What makes a good study day? An intraindividual
study on university students’ time investment by means of time-series analyses. Learning and
Instruction, 60, 310–321. [Link]
Lim, L., Dawson, S., Gasevic, D., Joksimovic, S., Fudge, A., Pardo, A., & Gentili, S. (2020). Students’
sense-making of personalised feedback based on learning analytics. Australasian Journal of Edu-
cational Technology, 36, 15–33. [Link]
Lim, L.-A., Gentili, S., Pardo, A., Kovanović, V., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S.
(2021). What changes, and for whom? A study of the impact of learning analytics-based process
feedback in a large course. Learning and Instruction, 72, 101202. [Link]
instr​uc.​2019.​04.​003
Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2013). Active Learners: Redesigning an intelligent tutoring system to support
self-regulated learning. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up
learning for sustained impact (pp. 490–495). Springer. [Link]
4_​44
Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2012). Life-
long learning as a goal – Do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared pupils?
Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 27–36. [Link]
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986
to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. [Link]
s10209-​014-​0348-1
Martin, F., Chen, Y., Moore, R. L., & Westine, C. D. (2020). Systematic review of adaptive learning
research designs, context, strategies, and technologies from 2009 to 2018. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 68(4), 1903–1929. [Link]
Martin, A. J., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., Malmberg, L.-E., Collie, R. J., & Calvo, R. A. (2015). Real-time
motivation and engagement during a month at school: Every moment of every day for every stu-
dent matters. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 26–35. [Link]
01.​014
Matcha, W., Gašević, D., Uzir, N. A., Jovanović, J., & Pardo, A. (2019). Analytics of learning strategies:
Associations with academic performance and feedback. In S. Hasio, J. Cunningham, K. McCarthy,
G. Lynch, C. Brooks, & R. Ferguson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on
learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 461–470). Association for Computing Machinery. [Link]
org/​10.​1145/​33037​72.​33037​87
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (12th ed.). Beltz.
McCardle, L., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Using multiple, contextualized data sources to measure learners’
perceptions of their self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 43–75. [Link]
org/​10.​1007/​s11409-​014-​9132-0
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated
learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
106(1), 121–131. [Link]
Mejeh, M., Hagenauer, G., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Mixed Methods Research on Learning and
Instruction—Meeting the Challenges of Multiple Perspectives and Levels Within a Complex Field.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 24 No. 1 (2023):
Mixed Methods and Multimethod Social Research—Current Applications and Future Directions.
[Link]

13
17802 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Mejeh, M., & Held, T. (2022). Understanding the Development of Self-Regulated Learning: An Interven-
tion Study to Promote Self-Regulated Learning in Vocational Schools. Vocations and Learning.
[Link]
Mejeh, M. & Rehm, M. (in press). Taking Adaptive Learning in the Educational Settings to the Next
Level: Leveraging Natural Language Processing for Improved Personalization. Educational tech-
nology research and development.
Metzger, C. (2017). Lern- und Arbeitsstrategien: Ein Fachbuch für Studierende (Vol. 12). Cornelsen.
Molenaar, I. (2014). Advances in temporal analysis in learning and instruction. Frontline Learning
Research, 2(4), 15–24. [Link]
Molenaar, I., Horvers, A., & Baker, R. S. (2021). What can moment-by-moment learning curves tell
about students’ self-regulated learning? Learning and Instruction, 72, 101206. [Link]
1016/j.​learn​instr​uc.​2019.​05.​003
Molenaar, I., Horvers, A., Dijkstra, R., & Baker, R. S. (2020). Personalized visualizations to promote
young learners’ SRL: The learning path app. In C. Rensing, H. Drachsler, V. Kovanovic, N. Pink-
wart, M. Scheffel, K. Verbert (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference on learning
analytics & knowledge (pp. 330–339). Association for Computing Machinery. [Link]
1145/​33754​62.​33754​65
Molenaar, I., & Järvelä, S. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and socially regulated
learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 75–85. [Link]
Molenaar, I., & Van Campen, C. K. (2016). Learning analytics in practice: The effects of adaptive educa-
tional technology Snappet on students’ arithmetic skills. In D. Gašević, G. Lynch, S. Dawson, H.
Drachsler, & C. Peinsten Rosé (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learn-
ing analytics & knowledge (pp. 538–539). Association for Computing Machinery. [Link]
10.​1145/​28838​51.​28838​92
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain
knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270–298. [Link]
cedps​ych.​2007.​03.​001
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model
and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
[Link]
Núñez-Peña, M. I., Bono, R., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2015). Feedback on students’ performance: A pos-
sible way of reducing the negative effect of math anxiety in higher education. International Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 70, 80–87. [Link]
Pammer-Schindler, V., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Drachsler, H., Elferink, R., & Scheffel, M. (Eds.). (2018).
Lifelong technology-enhanced learning: 13th European conference on technology enhanced learn-
ing, EC-TEL 2018, Leeds, UK, September 3–5, 2018, Proceedings (Vol. 11082). Springer. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​98572-5
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. [Link]
Park, E., Ifenthaler, D., & Clariana, R. B. (2022). Adaptive or adapted to: Sequence and reflexive the-
matic analysis to understand learners’ self‐regulated learning in an adaptive learning analytics
dashboard. British Journal of Educational Technology, 13287. [Link]
Pekrun, R. (2020). Self-report is indispensable to assess students’ learning. Frontline Learning Research,
8(3), 185–193. [Link]
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). User’s manual.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated
learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psy-
chologist, 37(2), 91–105. [Link]
Perry, N. E., Lisaingo, S., Yee, N., Parent, N., Wan, X., & Muis, K. (2020). Collaborating with teachers to
design and implement assessments for self-regulated learning in the context of authentic classroom
writing tasks. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 416–443. [Link]
org/​10.​1080/​09695​94X.​2020.​18015​76
Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K. E., Graham, M., & Shaw, R. (2003). College adults are not good at self-regula-
tion: A study on the relationship of self-regulation, note taking, and test taking. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 95(2), 335–346. [Link]
Pinheiro J., Bates D., & R Core Team (2023). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R pack-
age version 3.1–162. [Link]

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17803

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning.
International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. [Link]
0355(99)​00015-4
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning
in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. [Link]
s10648-​004-​0006-x
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). The motivated strategies for learning
questionaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan.
Pratama, I., Permanasari, A. E., Ardiyanto, I., & Indrayani, R. (2016). A review of missing values han-
dling methods on time-series data. In Proceedings of the international conference on information
technology systems and innovation (ICITSI) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. [Link]
78581​89.
R Core Team (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Sta-
tistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [Link]
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic
performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.
Roll, I., & Winne, P. H. (2015). Understanding, evaluating, and supporting self-regulated learning using
learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 7–12. [Link]
Rowe, A. (2011). The personal dimension in teaching: Why students value feedback. International Jour-
nal of Educational Management, 25(4), 343–360. [Link]
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological
Methods, 7(2), 147–177. [Link]
Schmid, R., Pauli, C., & Petko, D. (2022a). Examining the use of digital technology in schools with a
school-wide approach to personalized learning. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment. [Link]
Schmid, R., Pauli, C., Stebler, R., Reusser, K., & Petko, D. (2022b). Implementation of technology-
supported personalized learning – It’s impact on instructional quality. The Journal of Educational
Research, 115(3), 187–198. [Link]
Schmitz, B. (2000). Auf der Suche nach dem verlorenen Individuum: Vier Theoreme zur Aggregation von
Prozessen. Psychologische Rundschau, 51(2), 83–92. [Link]
Schmitz, B. (2001). Self-Monitoring zur Unterstützung des Transfers einer Schulung in Selbstregulation
für Studierende. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15, 181–197. [Link]
1010-​0652.​15.​34.​181
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-reg-
ulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1),
64–96. [Link]
Schreier, M. (2017). Fallauswahl in der qualitativ-psychologischen Forschung. In G. Mey & K. Mruck
(Hrsg.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (S. 1–21). Springer. [Link]
10.​1007/​978-3-​658-​18387-5_​19-1
Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Features students really expect from learning analytics. Comput-
ers in Human Behavior, 78, 397–407. [Link]
Sedrakyan, G., Malmberg, J., Verbert, K., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Linking learning behav-
ior analytics and learning science concepts: Designing a learning analytics dashboard for feedback
to support learning regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 105512. [Link]
1016/j.​chb.​2018.​05.​004
Seiler, L., Kuhnel, M., Honal, A., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Mobile Learning Analytics: Potenziale für
Lernen und Lehren am Beispiel Hochschule. In C. de Witt & C. Gloerfeld (Hrsg.), Handbuch
Mobile Learning (pp. 585–608). Springer. [Link]
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
[Link]
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and
educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3),
421–442. [Link]
Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2006). Lernstrategien im Studium. In H. Mandl & F. Friedrich (Eds.),
Handbuch Lernstrategien (1st ed., pp. 352–364). Hogrefe.
Tempelaar, D. (2020). Supporting the less-adaptive student: The role of learning analytics, formative
assessment and blended learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 579–593.
[Link]

13
17804 Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805

Theobald, M., & Bellhäuser, H. (2022). How am I going and where to next? Elaborated online feedback
improves university students’ self-regulated learning and performance. The Internet and Higher
Education, 55, 100872. [Link]
Tsai, Y.-S., Rates, D., Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Drachsler,
H., Delgado Kloos, C., & Gašević, D. (2020). Learning analytics in European higher education
– Trends and barriers. Computers & Education, 155, 103933. [Link]
2020.​103933
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2022). Lifelong learning opportunities for all: Medium-term
strategy 2022–2029. UNESCO Digital Library. [Link]
Velicer, W. F., & Colby, S. M. (2005). A comparison of missing-data procedures for arima time-series
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(4), 596–615. [Link]
00131​64404​272502
Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J. L., Van Assche, F., Parra, G., & Klerkx, J. (2013). Learn-
ing dashboards: An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Comput-
ing, 18, 1499–1514. [Link]
Weinstein, C. E., Zimmermann, S. A., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing learning strategies: The design
and development of the LASSI. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learn-
ing and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 25–40). Academic
Press. [Link]
Wigfield, A., Klauda, S. L., & Cambria, J. (2011). Influences on the development of academic self-regu-
latory processes. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning
and performance (2nd ed., pp. 33–48). Routledge.
Wild, K.-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und
Reliabilität eines neuen Fragebogens. Zeitschrift Für Differentielle Und Diagnostische Psycholo-
gie, 15(4), 185–200.
Winne, P. H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional
Science, 33(5/6), 559–565.
Winne, P. H. (2017). Leveraging big data to help each learner and accelerate learning science. Teach-
ers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 119(3), 1–24. [Link]
01614​68117​11900​305
Winne, P. H. (2022). Modeling self-regulated learning as learners doing learning science: How trace data
and learning analytics help develop skills for self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning,
17, 773–791. [Link]
Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 63–87). Cambridge University Press. [Link]
CBO97​81139​519526.​006
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky,
& A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (1st ed., pp. 277–304).
Routledge.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, M. Zeidner, &
P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (1st ed., pp. 531–566). Academic Press. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-​01210​9890-2/​50045-7
Wolters, C. A., & Brady, A. C. (2021). College students’ time management: A self-regulated learn-
ing perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1319–1351. [Link]
s10648-​020-​09519-z
Xie, H., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Wang, C.-C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-
enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to
2017. Computers & Education, 140, 103599. [Link]
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (1st ed., pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, meth-
odological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1),
166–183. [Link]

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:17763–17805 17805

Authors and Affiliations

Mathias Mejeh1,2 · Livia Sarbach1 · Tina Hascher1

* Mathias Mejeh
[Link]@[Link]
Livia Sarbach
[Link]@[Link]
Tina Hascher
[Link]@[Link]
1
Department of Research in School and Learning, Institute of Educational Science, University
of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
2
Department of Education Studies, University of California, San Diego, 9625 Scholars Drive
North, La Jolla, CA 92093‑0070, USA

13