Effects of planning on task load, knowledge, and tool preference: A comparison of two tools.

W.J. Bonestroo, Ton de Jong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Self-regulated learners are expected to plan their own learning. Because planning is a complex task, it is not self-evident that all learners can perform this task successfully. In this study, we examined the effects of two planning support tools on the quality of created plans, planning behavior, task load, and acquired knowledge. Sixty-five participants each worked with two versions of a planning tool. In one version, learning plans were actively constructed by the learners themselves; the other version provided learners with an adaptable computer-generated plan. The results indicated that the quality of learner-created plans was lower than computer-generated plans. Furthermore, participants reported a higher task load when they constructed the plans by themselves. However, participants gained more structural knowledge about the learning domain when they actively created plans. There was not an apparent preference for one of the tools if participants were to create a plan for someone else. However, if they were to use the plan for their own learning, participants preferred to actively create their own plans.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)141-153
JournalInteractive learning environments
Volume20
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Planning
planning
learning
knowledge

Keywords

  • IR-83927
  • METIS-291832

Cite this

@article{83c2807cf1fb4f18aa592eb46ab35daf,
title = "Effects of planning on task load, knowledge, and tool preference: A comparison of two tools.",
abstract = "Self-regulated learners are expected to plan their own learning. Because planning is a complex task, it is not self-evident that all learners can perform this task successfully. In this study, we examined the effects of two planning support tools on the quality of created plans, planning behavior, task load, and acquired knowledge. Sixty-five participants each worked with two versions of a planning tool. In one version, learning plans were actively constructed by the learners themselves; the other version provided learners with an adaptable computer-generated plan. The results indicated that the quality of learner-created plans was lower than computer-generated plans. Furthermore, participants reported a higher task load when they constructed the plans by themselves. However, participants gained more structural knowledge about the learning domain when they actively created plans. There was not an apparent preference for one of the tools if participants were to create a plan for someone else. However, if they were to use the plan for their own learning, participants preferred to actively create their own plans.",
keywords = "IR-83927, METIS-291832",
author = "W.J. Bonestroo and {de Jong}, Ton",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1080/10494820.2010.484253",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "141--153",
journal = "Interactive learning environments",
issn = "1049-4820",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "2",

}

Effects of planning on task load, knowledge, and tool preference: A comparison of two tools. / Bonestroo, W.J.; de Jong, Ton.

In: Interactive learning environments, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2012, p. 141-153.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of planning on task load, knowledge, and tool preference: A comparison of two tools.

AU - Bonestroo, W.J.

AU - de Jong, Ton

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Self-regulated learners are expected to plan their own learning. Because planning is a complex task, it is not self-evident that all learners can perform this task successfully. In this study, we examined the effects of two planning support tools on the quality of created plans, planning behavior, task load, and acquired knowledge. Sixty-five participants each worked with two versions of a planning tool. In one version, learning plans were actively constructed by the learners themselves; the other version provided learners with an adaptable computer-generated plan. The results indicated that the quality of learner-created plans was lower than computer-generated plans. Furthermore, participants reported a higher task load when they constructed the plans by themselves. However, participants gained more structural knowledge about the learning domain when they actively created plans. There was not an apparent preference for one of the tools if participants were to create a plan for someone else. However, if they were to use the plan for their own learning, participants preferred to actively create their own plans.

AB - Self-regulated learners are expected to plan their own learning. Because planning is a complex task, it is not self-evident that all learners can perform this task successfully. In this study, we examined the effects of two planning support tools on the quality of created plans, planning behavior, task load, and acquired knowledge. Sixty-five participants each worked with two versions of a planning tool. In one version, learning plans were actively constructed by the learners themselves; the other version provided learners with an adaptable computer-generated plan. The results indicated that the quality of learner-created plans was lower than computer-generated plans. Furthermore, participants reported a higher task load when they constructed the plans by themselves. However, participants gained more structural knowledge about the learning domain when they actively created plans. There was not an apparent preference for one of the tools if participants were to create a plan for someone else. However, if they were to use the plan for their own learning, participants preferred to actively create their own plans.

KW - IR-83927

KW - METIS-291832

U2 - 10.1080/10494820.2010.484253

DO - 10.1080/10494820.2010.484253

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 141

EP - 153

JO - Interactive learning environments

JF - Interactive learning environments

SN - 1049-4820

IS - 2

ER -