Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu

Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-directed learning inonline educational environments

Rosemary Kim a, *, Lorne Olfman b, Terry Ryan b, Evren Eryilmaz c

a Loyola Marymount University, College of Business Administration, 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USAb Claremont Graduate University, School of Information Systems and Technology, 130 East 9th Street, Claremont, CA 91711, USAc Bloomsburg University, College of Business, 400 East Second Street, Bloomsburg, PA 17815, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 January 2013Received in revised form7 August 2013Accepted 11 August 2013

Keywords:Online learningSelf-directed learning pedagogical issuesTeaching/learning strategies

Abbreviations: SDL, self-directed learning; SDLS, s* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: rosemary.kim@lmu.edu, rhkimu.edu (E. Eryilmaz).

0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.006

a b s t r a c t

Many students who participate in online courses experience frustration and failure because they are notprepared for the demanding and isolated learning experience. A traditional learning theory known asself-directed learning (SDL) is a foundation that can help establish features of a personalized system thathelps students improve their abilities to manage their overall learning activities and monitor their ownperformance. Additionally, the system enables collaboration, interaction, feedback, and the much-neededsupport from the instructor and students’ peers. A Web 2.0 social-technology application, MediaWiki,was adopted as the platform fromwhich incremental features were developed to utilize the fundamentalconcepts of SDL. Students were able to customize content by setting specific learning goals, reflecting ontheir learning experiences, self-monitoring activities and performances, and collaborating with others inthe class. SDL skills exist to some degree in all learners, this study finds that students’ SDL abilities canimprove when a course adopts a personalized and collaborative learning system that enables the stu-dents to be more proactive in planning, organizing, and monitoring their course activities.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Online learning is increasingly popular among students who desire scheduling flexibility and a convenient location, but, despite thesignificant annual growth in enrollment, many obstacles impede successful online education. Across the board, administrators attributehigh attrition rates and poor performance to students’ intrinsic weaknessesdlowmotivation and poor disciplinedinstead to the difficultiesof the online format (Allen & Seaman, 2005). Indeed, some studies have shown that students may lack the self-discipline, initiative, andcognitive strategies necessary to do well in online courses (Ma, 2013; Schrum & Hong, 2002). Other studies have found that students canhave poor time management and organizational skills, or that they can be inadequate managers of their own learning (Song, Singleton, Hill,& Koh, 2004). While the ability to learn independently is key for success in online education, participation and social interaction candramatically influence online learning outcomes (Hrastinski, 2009; Shea & Bidjerano, 2010; Shea & Bidjerano, 2012). Studies in self-directedlearning (SDL) show that the very format of online learningmakes it more difficult for many students to build rapport and interact with theirpeers and instructors (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006; Roblyer, 1999; Tyler-Smith, 2005). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to investigate theeffect of a self-directed learning system (SDLS) on students’ competency to self-manage their own learning processes. For this purpose, wewill review the ongoing growth of online education and focus on college students’ low competency to self-manage their own learningprocesses as a central challenge in the following section. Wewill then describe self-directed learning as our theoretical approach to proposea conceptual framework that guides the development of a SDLS. After specifying our research hypotheses andmethodology, wewill presentthe results. We will conclude with a discussion of the findings, contributions, limitations, as well as avenues for future research.

elf-directed learning system; SDLCSAF, the self-directed learning competencies self appraisal form.

m2000@gmail.com (R. Kim), lorne.olfman@cgu.edu (L. Olfman), terry.ryan@cgu.edu (T. Ryan), eeryilma@bloo-

ll rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Self-directed learning (SDL) conceptual framework.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160 151

2. The growth and challenges of online learning

Nearly 30% of higher-education students now take at least one course online (Allen & Seaman, 2010). According to recent surveyspublished by the Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C), online enrollments have been growing substantially faster than overall higher educationenrollments: the annual growth rate in 2010 was 21% online, while it was 2% for overall higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Addi-tionally, over 5.6million students took at least one online course during the fall 2009 term, up from about 4.7 million students in fall of 2008and just over 3.9 million students during the fall of 2007 (Allen & Seaman, 2008, 2009, 2010). This online enrollment population representsover 20% of all U.S. higher education students. An earlier survey by Sloan-C (Allen & Seaman, 2007) showed that, from fall 2002 to 2006, thecompounded annual growth rate for online learning was 21.5%, compared to a 1.5% increase for all U.S. higher education. But the flexibility toretrieve course information at their convenience appeals to many students, including working professionals and adult learners whootherwise would not have the opportunity to take classes and pursue degrees or certificates. The online-learning process is no longer anindividual endeavor; the online learning environment takes advantage of the widely available network infrastructure to leverage themultiple relationships that develop between learners and other students and between learners and instructors, in many-to-many relationsamong members of the course (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001).

Despite the convenience and significant growth in enrollment numbers, many studies have identified challenges to online learning.Research shows attrition rates for online learners range from 10% to 30% more than experienced by traditional, face-to-face learners(Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006; Carr, 2000; Dutton & Perry, 2002). Reasons for higher attrition rates are numerous and complex. Some of thereported challenges include self-discipline, self-management of learning activities, taking initiative for learning, time management, orga-nization skills, cognitive strategies, and building rapport andmaintaining interactions with peers (Allen & Seaman, 2005; Bouhnik &Marcus,2006; Roblyer, 1999; Willging & Johnson, 2004). Given these challenges, a survey by Sloan-C (Allen & Seaman, 2005) found that admin-istrators at every size and type of institution cited students’ difficulty of self-discipline in managing their learning as the greatest barrier toonline learning’s widespread adoption. Building on this survey, we concur with Naidu (2003) that online learning students can benefit fromdevelopment of skills in self-directedness.

3. Self-directed learning

SDL is a theory where learning conceptualization, design, conduct and evaluation of the effort are at center of the learner’s control(Brookfield, 2009). The fundamental concepts of SDL theory offer a means for online students to enhance their skills for taking better controlof their learning process. The idea that students can take initiative and be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to learn has long beenidentified as critical to functioning of academic institutions (Guglielmino, 1977; Teo et al., 2010). SDL is valuable for supporting motivationand retention while promoting self-developed inquiries (Knowles, 1975), but independence in learning does not imply a lack of coursestructure. Rather, integrating SDL into education calls for a redefinition of the instructor’s role as a facilitator in the students’ process oftaking greater responsibility for their learning (Boud, 1981; Robertson, 2011; Teo et al., 2010). According to Brookfield (2009), SDL involvesworking in self-directed ways while engaged in group-learning environments recognizing that it is beneficial, and the way learners chooseto move in and out of the peer networks is a recurring theme in SDL research.

According to Garrison (2003), SDL developed as a learning theory for adults over the last century by leading figures such as Carl Rogers(1966) who outlined the concept of self-direction, as well as Tough (1971) and Knowles (1975) who further developed SDL within adulteducation. Over time, SDL gained attention as a valuable principle in formal educational settings and as ameans to improve the effectivenessof academic institutions. To facilitate a balance between instructor and student roles, Smith and Haverkamp (1977) recommended thereinforcement of self-directedness and the use of “learning how to learn” activities as integral parts of formal course activities. Later,Garrison (1997, 2003) made the connection that SDL is theoretically and practically relevant for online education because SDL shares with itthe need for responsibility and a degree of autonomy.

The basic principle underlying SDL is that individuals empower themselves and take responsibility for various decisions related to theirlearning (Knowles, 1975). Instead of passively following instructions, students take an active role in their overall learning process. This self-directive learning activities such as determining the desired knowledge and skills, adopting appropriate learning strategies, and assessing

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160152

learning outcomes are supported by the theoretical concepts of Knowles (1975), Boud (1981), Tough (1971), and Guglielmino (1977).Guglielmino (1977) believed that learners are able to transfer their learning, including knowledge and study skills, from one situation toanother. Individuals possess different degrees of SDL abilities and by engaging in the activities mentioned above Guglielmino (1977)demonstrated that students’ competency to self-manage their own learning processes can improve. This study reinforces the theoreticalframework of SDL, which suggests that although learningmay primarily be a creative cognitive process within an individual’smind, it can beenhanced through interactions and collaborative opportunities with others (Suthers, 2006).

An earlier theorizer, Brookfield (1985, 1986) added that SDL is realized when external activities and internal reflective dimensions arecombined. External activities, also described as self-management (Bolhuis, 1996) is described within the context of SDL as activities such asgoal setting and organizing learning tasks (Abdullah, 2001; Bolhuis, 1996; Garrison, 1997). Internal activities, also described as self-monitoring, relates to the learning process and the cognitive responsibility needed to achieve learning goals (Abdullah, 2001). Such in-ternal activities include self-monitoring class performance, periodic goal refinement, and reflection on learning progress. For our research,we approach SDL theory in a holistic concept of both external and internal, self-management and self-monitoring aspects.

Based on the characteristics of SDL such as determining the desired knowledge and skills, adopting appropriate learning strategies, andassessing learning outcomes, as described by Boud (1981), Knowles (1975), Tough (1971), and Guglielmino (1977), an SDL conceptualframework was designed (see Fig. 1). The framework consists of five tasks critical to effective completion of the SDL:

1) Establishing learning goals (e.g., A learner identifies desired accomplishment from a given learning experience. Goals may includeearning a good grade for the quiz, mastering course content, and learning information relevant to one’s career goals.)

2) Locate and access resources, (e.g., A learner identifies resources necessary for accomplishing a learning experience. Resources mayinclude text- books, learning materials from the instructor, the Internet, the library, online discussions with peers, and interactions withthe instructor.)

3) Adopt and execute learning activities (e.g., A learner decides on a specific plan of action that is alignedwith the established goals and theuse of available resources. Activities includemaintaining a calendar of assignments and projects,managing time to study at a steady pace,staying involvedwith class discussions and collaboratingwith others, and actively seeking feedback fromothers including the instructor.)

4) Monitor and evaluate performance (e.g., A learner tracks and measures actual performance of results to previously established goals.Based on performance results, the learner can refine his or her learning activities and goals.)

5) Reassess learning strategies progress (e.g., A learner self-reflects and re-examines the various activities completed to determine waysfor improving learning experience. This activity can lead to adjustments in one or more of the previous tasks to improve learning resultsandmeet established goals. In addition, this activity will help students to better prepare themselves for further participation in learningenvironments.)

The SDL conceptual framework was designed and refined with detailed input from focus groups in previous studies (e.g., Kim, 2011) andsubsequently finalized and adopted for this study.

The conceptual framework can be seen as a set of activities iterated to meet the learner’s own needs. By practicing these core activities, astudent’s SDL ability is reinforced. While the five components are noted as being essential means for SDL, depending on the preferences forlearning strategies, students may spend more time on one activity and less time on another, it is not required that each step be performedsequentially nor in equal effort, but rather that the students find what steps suit their strategies in order to reinforce and improve theirabilities to be self-directive. Research findings suggest that, to be successful in an online learning environment, the students must beproactive in managing their learning process rather than waiting for information to be delivered by the instructor (Knowles, 1975). Ac-cording to Brookfield (1985) and Tough (1978), in an SDL environment, students take ownership of their learning experiences, eitherindependently or with assistance from others. SDL is a natural method of iterative learning, particularly for adult students who prefer tohave some degree of self-direction in their classroom environments (Knowles, 1975; Tough, 1978). As Guglielmino (1977) pointed out, SDLexists on a continuum and the necessary characteristics are present in every individual to some degree. Additionally, Knowles (1975)believed that self-direction in learning can be increased for most people. As such, we believe that engaging in the SDL activities stimu-late students to take initiative and enable them to better navigate their learning process. The significance of SDL is best understood in termsof the type of learners it develops: these learners demonstrate greater awareness and accountability by making learning meaningful andmonitoring their own progress as successful learners (Abdullah, 2001; Garrison, 1997). As a result, they are more motivated, persistent,disciplined, confident, and goal-oriented than average students (Taylor, 1995). Based on our discussion of SDL theory and the conceptualframework SDL activities, we now turn to discussion of designing SDLS to facilitate relevant activities.

4. Self-directed learning system (SDLS)

MediaWiki was chosen as the platform to integrate aforementioned SDL features for the development of a SDLS. We employed thisplatform for three reasons. First, MediaWiki offers a simple editing and publishing interface that requires minimal student knowledge of theWeb (Kim, Makino, & Otto, 2012). Second, MediaWiki’s capability to facilitate sharing of information and editing of documents is crucial forexchanging feedback and developing SDL abilities (Kim, 2011). Lastly, MediaWiki is a flexible open source platform for the integration ofuseful tools to further enhance functionalities related to SDL activities (Kim, 2009). To aid the development of SDLS, we conducted in-terviews with a separate group of students in two pilot studies to identify the most important features desired for the SDLS. These featuresincluded the ability to document learning goals, to maintain a list of learning resources, to schedule and plan study times and learningactivities, to track performance of completed goals, and to self-assess accomplishments and new ideas for learning. The ability to share theirgoals and other SDL activities was thought to be very helpful for stimulating additional ideas for formulating goals, resources, and learningstrategies. Also, students stressed the importance of being able to interact and communicate with one another synchronously orasynchronously.

The resulting SDLS offered the ability to hold chat sessions, post board-wide messages, have threaded discussions, send and receiveemail, and identify which other students were online. Additionally, students were able to personalize their home pages with information

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160 153

that they wanted to share about themselves. They could also post friend requests, questions, and comments to everyone or to selectedindividuals in the class. The students had the option to choose whether to share their documentation, but the instructor had access to allstudent pages for feedback purposes. It was also important that the students see the instructor as a facilitator and feel comfortable relatingto the instructor. Instructors need to present themselves as someone relatable and take an active role in discussions so that cognitivepresence and trust can be established (Dutton & Perry, 2002; Garrison, 2003; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). In service of a learning atmospherethat encourages collaboration and fosters a meaningful, collaborative, and supportive experience (Knowles, 1975), the SDLS included waysfor students to develop collaborative learning while receiving support from the instructor.

Fig. 2 below portrays a SDL activity page to facilitate a simple way for students to access their SDL activities.Fig. 3 below shows a goal page (activity one in conceptual framework) that stimulates a student to document learning goals, explainwhy

those goals are important, and plan for the achievement of the goals.Fig. 4 below depicts a resource page (activity two in conceptual framework) to help a student build and share a list of resources to achieve

learning goals.Fig. 5 below demonstrates an activity page (task three in conceptual framework) to encourage a student list all specific tasks that must be

completed in order to meet the established goals.Fig. 6 below illustrates a performance page (activity four in conceptual framework) to help a student track performance as progress is

made in meeting a goal.Fig. 7 below presents a reassessment and reflection page (activity five in conceptual framework) to stimulate a student to document new

information learned to support established goals, difficulties experienced on a particular assignment, an activity that was particularlyrewarding, or discussion of other topics that explain overall experience and progress, showing accountability of one’s own learning process.

These self-directed and social features of the SDLS in this study were designed to reinforce a collaborative learning environment.Knowles (1975) wrote that SDL does not imply learning in isolation; it takes place in association with others who can help, such as in-structors, mentors, and peers. He further asserted that the SDL environment should allow learners to become acquainted with one anotheras people and as mutual resources for learning. SDLS was developed with these foundations as the core of the design so that users can havethe opportunity to practice and reinforce their SDL experience. We now discuss in the following section our research question and hy-pothesis, and details of our research model.

5. Research model and hypothesis

This study focused on the following research question: Does the use of SDLS in an online course improve students’ competency to self-manage their own learning processes? Drawing on the conceptual framework and SDLS presented above, we developed the research modelillustrated in Fig. 8. The model depicts the relationship between the SDLS, the SDL process, and the SDL competency score. The independentvariable is the use of the SDLS. As noted previously, we identified five key activities in the SDL process: setting goals, locating and accessingresources, adopting and executing learning activities, monitoring and evaluating performance, and reassessing learning strategies. SDLSenabled students to establish connections with others in an online classroom setting rather than practicing the SDL process independently.The dependent variable is the change in individual SDL competency scores as a result of engaging in the SDL process facilitated by the SDLS.

The following hypotheses were tested:

H1: The overall mean of the SDL competency score will be higher for the experimental group than for the control group.

Fig. 2. SDL activity page.

Fig. 3. SDL goals page.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160154

H1.1: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 1, establishing learning goals, will be higher for the experimental group than forthe control group.H1.2: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 2, allocating resources, will be higher for the experimental group than for thecontrol group.H1.3: Themean of the SDL competency score for activity 3, planning learning activities, will be higher for the experimental group than forthe control group.H1.4: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 4, monitoring performance, will be higher for the experimental group than forthe control group.H1.5: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 5, reassessment of learning strategies, will be higher for the experimental groupthan for the control group.

Fig. 4. SDL resource page.

Fig. 5. SDL activity page.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160 155

6. Methodology

To test the hypotheses, we conducted two prior pilot studies and an experimental study as our main study. The purpose of the pilotstudies was twofold: 1) to determine the validity of the adopted survey instrument, 2) to acquire input for development of proposedSDLS. The first pilot study involved interviewing twelve students, and the second pilot study involved interviewing nineteen students. Inboth studies, students were business majors enrolled in upper-division business courses. The experimental study included 60 businessstudents enrolled in two sections of an upper-division online course in business management. Each section had similar student profilesin terms of the ratio of male to female students, representation of diverse ethnicities, average years of college study completed, andcompetency in using the computer and Internet as integral parts of their course work. In addition, the majority of participants in bothclasses had completed between one and three online courses. In general, most students enjoyed taking online courses. Furthermore, agreat majority of students in both groups strongly agreed that SDL abilities were important and reported a desire to improve in theseareas while learning online. We assigned one section of the course to the experimental and the other to the control group. Theexperimental group had access to the SDLS-enhanced wiki, while the control group used wiki technology without enhanced SDLfeatures.

Fig. 6. SDL performance page.

Fig. 7. SDL reassessment and reflection page.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160156

6.1. Measurement of students’ perceived competency in self-directed learning

For the experimental study, we measured students’ perceived competency in self-directed learning with pre-test and post-test surveys.Caffarella and Caffarella (1986) originally designed a survey Self-Directed Learning Competencies Self Appraisal Form (SDLCSAF), which wasadapted for this study (see Appendix). Sample survey items include:

� I am able to identify specific topics that I need to study in order to learn each chapter more effectively.� I know how to use course materials and other resources to achieve learning objectives and gain knowledge.� I see classmates as resources for planning and completing study activities.� I take the initiative in making use of the resources that instructors offer.� I ask instructors for feedback, clarity, or direction when needed.

We tested the internal consistency of SDLCSAF using Cronbach’s alpha measure with a separate group of pilot study participants. The 7-point Likert scale ranged from 1 ¼ not very competent in performing the described activity to 7 ¼ very competent in performing the describedactivity. A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered “acceptable” in most social-science studies (Field, 2009). The Cronbach’s alphafor the adopted SDLCSAF from the pilot study was .91.

At the beginning of the experimental study, the participants completed a pre-test survey, the adapted SDLCSAF. A link to the survey wasemailed to the students, and they were asked to participate on a voluntary and anonymous basis. After completion of the survey, studentswere given a presentation about the concept of self-directed learning, and they were encouraged to manage their online-learning processesbased on five key activities identified in the conceptual framework. After the presentation, both classes completed the same assignments forthe duration of the course with their assigned technology. Assignments included reading summaries, quizzes, and discussions questions. Atthe end of the academic term posttest survey was given to both classes to measure their SDL competency scores analyze the changes.

Establish Learning Goals

Locate and Access Resources

Self-Directed Learning

Management System

Adopt and Execute Learning Activities

Monitor and Evaluate Performance

Reassess Learning Strategies

Self-Directed Learning

Competency Score

Process of Self-Directed Learning

Fig. 8. Research model.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160 157

7. Results

The quantitative data collected from the survey were analyzed using SPSS 16.0. One hundred percent of the studied population took thepretest and posttest surveys in both the control and experimental groups. The resulting differences between the overall means of the twosamples were compared for competency in performing the SDL activities and then subcategorized to compare the means of ability toperform each of the five activities. This approach is consistent with the hypotheses established for the study.

Based on the individual responses of the SDLCSAF, mean competency scores were calculated for the control and experimental groups forboth the pretest and posttest (see Table 1). For the pretest, there was no significant difference between the means of the two groups. Thecontrol group’s pretest meanwasM¼ 4.40 (SD¼ 1.00), while the experimental group’s pretest meanwasM¼ 4.46 (SD¼ .97). This differencewas not significant, t(58) ¼ .244, p > .05. The histogram showed a normal distribution of mean scores for both groups.

Upon conclusion of the test period, information was collected for the posttest results and the changes in means were analyzed. Onaverage, participants in the experimental group had competency scores higher (M ¼ 6.18, SD ¼ .72) than those of the control group(M ¼ 4.71, SD ¼ .90). This difference was significant, t(58) ¼ 6.98, p < .001 (see Table 1).

The results were in accordance with the prediction that the overall mean of the SDL competency score would be higher for students inthe experimental group (those who used the SDLS) than for those in the control group, who did not use the system. In light of this importantfinding, we conducted a fine-grained analysis, reported below, to determine the effectiveness of SDLS in reinforcing each SDL activity.

Three survey questions addressed the first activity, establishing goals. They assessed students’ perceived abilities to set learning goals, toidentify specific topics that need to be mastered, and to set realistic goals. For the pretest, the control group meanwasM ¼ 4.20 (SD ¼ 1.11),whereas the experimental groupmeanwasM¼ 4.44 (SD¼ 1.26). The difference in means was not significant t(58)¼ .796, p> .05. The post-test showed that the control group mean was M ¼ 4.29 (SD ¼ .93) while the experimental group mean was M ¼ 6.36 (SD ¼ .57). Thedifference in means was significant, t(58) ¼ 10.431, p < .001. The results are in accordance with the prediction that the mean score for SDLcompetencywould be higher for the experimental group than for the control group (see Table 2, Activity 1). Students who used the SDLS hadhigher mean scores on their perceived ability to set learning goals, identify topics to be mastered, and establish realistic goals.

Nine survey questions addressed the second activity, locating and accessing resources. They assessed student’s perceived abilities to seehis or her peers and the instructor as resources and to acquire and utilize additional relevant course materials. These questions alsoaddressed the social environment of the course, including social interactions such as communicating and exchanging information andfeedback. For the pretest, the control group mean was M ¼ 4.60 (SD ¼ 1.09), while the experimental group mean was M ¼ 4.66 (SD ¼ 1.12).The difference in means was not significant, t(58) ¼ .208, p > .05. For the posttest, the control group mean was M ¼ 4.99 (SD ¼ 1.13), whilethe experimental group mean was M ¼ 6.16 (SD ¼ .86). The difference in means was significant, t(58) ¼ 4.499, p < .001. The results are inaccordance with the prediction that the mean score for SDL competency would be higher for the experimental group than for the controlgroup (see Table 2, Activity 2). On average, those who used the SDLS had higher mean scores on the ability to see peers and the instructor asresources, to acquire and utilize relevant course materials, and to collaborate and exchange information and feedback.

Two survey questions addressed the third activity, adopt and execute learning activities. They assessed student’s perceived abilities toorganize and plan the specific tasks necessary to learn the course content and meet the established goals as well as the ability to executelearning strategies. For the pretest, the control group mean was M ¼ 4.20 (SD ¼ 1.28), while the experimental group mean was M ¼ 4.22(SD ¼ 1.33). The difference in means was not significant, t(58) ¼ .049, p > .05. Results for the posttest showed that the control group meanwasM¼ 4.47 (SD¼ .99), while the experimental groupmeanwasM¼ 6.10 (SD¼ .87). The difference in means was significant, t(58)¼ 6.768,p < .001. The results are in accordance with the prediction that the mean score for SDL competency would be higher for the experimentalgroup than for the control group (see Table 2, Activity 3). On average, those who used the SDLS had higher mean scores on the ability toorganize and plan specific learning activities than did those who did not use the SDLS.

Two survey questions addressed the fourth activity, monitor and evaluate performance. They assessed students’ perceived abilities toself-assess learning progress and to monitor learning results through reflection on new knowledge. For the pretest, the control groupmean was M ¼ 4.33 (SD ¼ 1.35), while the experimental group mean was M ¼ 4.18 (SD ¼ 1.33). The difference in means was not sig-nificant, t(58) ¼ .432, p > .05. Results for the posttest showed that the control group mean was M ¼ 4.65 (SD ¼ 1.04), while theexperimental group mean was M ¼ 6.20 (SD ¼ .82). The difference in means was significant, t(58) ¼ 6.441, p < .001. The results are inaccordance with the prediction that the mean score for SDL competency would be higher for the experimental group than for the controlgroup (see Table 2, Activity 4). On average, those who used the SDLS had higher mean scores on the ability to monitor and assess theirown learning outcomes.

Two survey questions addressed the fifth activity, reassess learning strategies. They assessed students’ perceived abilities to determinewhether their learning strategies and activities effectively met the stated goals and whether the goals needed to be adjusted if unmet (e.g.,goals were unrealistic, too numerous, or too broad). For the pretest, the control group mean was M ¼ 4.07 (SD ¼ 1.26), while the experi-mental group mean was M ¼ 4.13 (SD ¼ 1.38). The difference in means was not significant, t(58) ¼ .195, p > .05. Results for the posttestshowed that the control group meanwasM ¼ 4.43 (SD ¼ 1.04), while the experimental group meanwasM ¼ 6.10 (SD ¼ .95). The differencein means was significant, t(58) ¼ 6.479, p < .001. The results are in accordance with the prediction that the mean score for SDL competency

Table 1Summary of means and t-test results.

SDL overall competency (ability to perform all five activities effectively) N ¼ 60

Group Mean SD Min Max t df P value(one tailed)

Pretest Control 4.40 1.00 1.72 6.50 .244 58 >.05Experimental 4.46 .97 2.39 6.17

Posttest Control 4.71 .90 2.28 6.00 6.98 58 <.001Experimental 6.18 .72 5.00 7.00

Note: All p values compared to Bonferroni adjusted a ¼ .005 to account for family wise error.

Table 2Summary of means and t-test results for individual SDL activities 1 through 5.

N ¼ 60

Group Mean SD Min Max t df P value (one tailed)

Activity 1: Establishing learning goals

Pretest Control 4.20 1.11 2.33 6.33 .796 58 >.05Experimental 4.44 1.26 1.00 6.67

Posttest Control 4.29 .93 2.00 5.67 10.431 58 <.001Experimental 6.36 .57 5.33 7.00

Activity 2: Allocating resourcesPretest Control 4.60 1.09 1.67 6.56 .208 58 >.05

Experimental 4.66 1.12 1.78 6.44Posttest Control 4.99 1.13 2.11 6.56 4.499 58 <.001

Experimental 6.16 .86 4.11 7.00Activity 3: Planning learning activitiesPretest Control 4.20 1.28 1.00 6.50 .049 58 >.05

Experimental 4.22 1.33 1.00 6.50Posttest Control 4.47 .99 2.50 6.50 6.768 58 <.001

Experimental 6.10 .87 4.50 7.00Activity 4: Monitoring performancePretest Control 4.33 1.35 1.00 6.50 .432 58 >.05

Experimental 4.18 1.33 1.50 6.50Posttest Control 4.65 1.04 2.00 6.00 6.441 58 <.001

Experimental 6.20 .82 4.50 7.00Activity 5: Reassessment of learning strategiesPretest Control 4.07 1.26 1.00 7.00 .195 58 >.05

Experimental 4.13 1.38 1.00 6.50Posttest Control 4.43 1.04 2.00 6.00 6.479 58 <.001

Experimental 6.10 .95 4.00 7.00

Note: All p values compared to Bonferroni adjusted a ¼ .005 to account for familywise error.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160158

would be higher for the experimental group than for the control group (see Table 2, Activity 5). On average, those who used the SDLS hadhigher mean scores on the ability to self-assess learning progress and adjust learning strategies.

For each hypothesis, the control and experimental groups had similar mean values for the pretest, but the posttest results revealed verydifferent mean scores (see Table 3). The statistical results strongly support each hypothesis. The difference of means in all cases was sig-nificant, p < .001.

All five hypotheses that the SDLS-enhanced wiki would improve competency in self-directed learning were supported. The findings ofthe study highlight that students can significantly increase their SDL capabilities when given the proper tools to reinforce active planningand organizing as learning strategies. Students developed these meta-learning skills by interacting with the system’s features of settinggoals, planning study activities, and monitoring performance while exchanging their resources, goals, and milestones with peers and theinstructor. Additional information regarding explanation of the results is noted in the following section.

8. Discussion

This study examined the change in SDL capabilities for those students who used the SDLS with enhanced features that may havereinforced their SDL abilities compared to those in the control group who used an unenhanced version. In this section, we discuss how thecore SDL activities made a difference in the findings and then relate the finding to overall effectiveness of SDLS in reinforcing SDL for onlinelearners.

Regarding the first activity in the SDL process, setting goals, the overall change in mean of the SDL competency score is higher for theexperimental group than for the control group. Those who used the SDLS reported higher competency score on the average than those whodid not. Possible reasons for this result is that by using SDLS to set goals, students felt a sense of accountability as their goals are visible andreminded each time they log on to the system. Their stated goals are also visible to others so it can further elevate their sense of commitmentto meet their goals. Setting goals is an important activity for SDL as it shapes the learner’s focus (Knowles, 1975). Sharing goals can also give

Table 3Results of the hypotheses for SDL competency.

Hypothesis Conclusion

H1: SDLS will improve students’ competency in SDL. SupportedH1.1: The overall mean of the SDL competency score for activity 1, setting goals, will be higher for the experimental group than for

the control group.Supported

H1.2: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 2, allocating resources, will be higher for the experimental group than forthe control group.

Supported

H1.3: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 3, planning learning activities, will be higher for the experimental groupthan for the control group.

Supported

H1.4: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 4, monitoring performance, will be higher for the experimental group thanfor the control group.

Supported

H1.5: The mean of the SDL competency score for activity 5, reassessment of learning strategies, will be higher for the experimentalgroup than for the control group.

Supported

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160 159

other students helpful suggestions for formulating more precise, relevant, and meaningful goals, leading to highly likely of achieving them.Over time, it was evident that students who used SDLS learned to develop more precise and realistic goals.

Regarding the second activity in the SDL process, allocating resources, the overall change in mean of the SDL competency score is higherfor the experimental group than for the control group. Those who used the SDLS reported higher competency score on the average thanthose who did not. Possible reasons for this result is that by identifying resources such as important articles, relevant websites sources andvideos on the Internet, and sharing relevant and helpful resources with one another, the learners’ resources multiplied and are moreempowered to gain knowledge.

Regarding the third activity in the SDL process, planning learning activities, the overall change in mean of the SDL competency score ishigher for the experimental group than for the control group. Those who used the SDLS reported higher competency score on the averagethan those who did not. Possible reason for this result is that by planning their learning activities, using the calendar features, and sharingtheir list of course related tasks, student had better understanding and control of what to do and seeing what others documented served ashelpful reminders of upcoming assignments, quizzes, and activities that they may have otherwise forgotten to prepare for.

Regarding the fourth activity in the SDL process, monitoring performance, the overall change in mean of the SDL competency score ishigher for the experimental group than for the control group. Those who used the SDLS reported higher competency score on the averagethan those who did not. Possible reasons for this result is that since specific goals were stated, students were more inclined to then tracktheir performances. When goals were met, posting such informationwas also fun for the students. When goals were not met, refining goalsbecame another opportunity to practice SDL.

Regarding the fifth activity in the SDL process, reassessment of learning strategies, the overall change in mean of the SDL competencyscore is higher for the experimental group than for the control group. Those who used the SDLS reported higher competency score on theaverage than those who did not. Possible reason for this result is that by assessing and reflecting onwhat learning activities worked and didnot work, students are able to better refine their learning strategies and try different skills for learning. Ideas for learning strategies can bebroadened because students were able to review each other’s assessments.

As a whole, using the SDLS improved students’ overall competency scores in being self-directive by practicing and reinforcing their SDLabilities. Their constant interaction with the system anchored a positive change in behavior while minimizing barriers in online learningbecause everything necessary for the course was in one place, the learning system. The findings of the study further reinforce the conceptthat SDL is not an effort undertaken in isolation: interaction and feedback are necessary in order to continually reshape one’s learningprocess for achievement (Brookfield, 2009; Knowles, 1975). The opportunity for students to share and socially interact created a platform ofsupportive learning and lessened the feelings of learning alone. The system’s features enabled the students to share learning materials andpertinent information, which helped them better prepare for course activities. The study’s results also evidence the value of the SDLS insupporting students management and control of their learning environments and processes. The personalized learning system for navi-gating through the class content and managing the course materials positively impacted students’ sense of learning and fulfillment: par-ticipants themselves reported that they not only learned the course content but strengthened their learning skills.

Some students chose to spendmore time and effort on particular activities while less time on other activities, so activity one for example,improved the most pretest to posttest because setting goals was thought to be essential in guiding their learning activities. We argue thatdepending on their specific needs students can dedicate different amount of time and effort on each activity. But overall, engaging theseactivities stimulate students to take initiatives and these initiatives can intrinsically and extrinsically motivate students to learnmore deeply(Guglielmino, 1977). We now discuss our conclusion for the study and include potential venues for further research.

9. Conclusion

While online learning has been understood as autonomous learning in isolationdoutside of the traditional classroomdit keenly lendsitself to the cultivation of SDL. Capability of SDL can improve when students are taught how to learn as part of the instructional process andare given the opportunity to practice the core SDL activities as outlined in Fig. 1. Our study sets the foundation for researchers and prac-titioners to explore further ways of supporting students in online learning environments by helping build active learning skills with use ofSDL enhancedwiki platform taking advantage ofWeb 2.0 capabilities such as supporting peer networking, collaboration, and social learning,is uniquely able to support students in managing their coursework, sharing knowledge, and building resources.

While many benefits were noted from this study, one of the limitations was the time required for students to experience the learningcurve in using the system. They needed time to learn how to develop goals that were specific, measureable, realistic, relevant, and importantto them. The evaluationmeasured short-term results over eight weeks’ time, but a longer period may capture additional insight. In addition,if the students were given an opportunity to use the SDLS for all of their courses during a given academic term, then collectively moreinformation could have been gathered about how the SDLS affects their overall ability to manage their time, activities, goals, and resources.Further, the study involved 60 participants, of which 30 were in the experimental group. While the sample size is adequate, a larger samplemay have provided additional insight about students’ experiences with the system.

This study focused its attention on the system’s effect on students’ SDL abilities and improvement in SDL competency scores based ontheir changed behaviors and perceptions. However, it is important to extend the study to ascertain whether the students’ improvements inmanaging their learning processes lead to improvements in actual learning outcomes. A valuable future study would evaluate the effect ofthe SDLS on learning results. By addressing the challenges described, a further study could measure the effect of SDLS on student’s learning.

References

Abdullah, M. H. (2001). Self-directed learning. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication (ERIC No. ED459458).Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning, 2007. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

R. Kim et al. / Computers & Education 70 (2014) 150–160160

Bolhuis, S. (1996). Towards active and self-directed learning: preparing for lifelong learning, with reference to Dutch secondary education. In Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American educational research association, New York, NY.

Boud, D. (1981). Developing student autonomy in learning. New York: Nicholas.Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305.Brookfield, S. D. (1985). Analyzing a critical paradigm of self-directed learning: a response. Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 60–64.Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Self-directed learning. In D. R. Maclean, & D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the changing world of work (pp. 2615–2627).

Netherlands: Springer.Caffarella, R. S., & Caffarella, E. P. (1986). Self-directedness and learning contracts in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(4), 226.Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41.Dutton, J., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students different from lecture students? Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–190.Field, A. P. (2010). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications Ltd.Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 15–31.Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: the role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Elements of Quality Online

Education: Practice and Direction, 4, 47–58.Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Athens: University of Georgia.Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52, 78–82.Kim, R. H. (2009). Self-directed learning management system: enabling efficacy in online learning environments. In 15th annual Americas conference on information systems,

doctoral consortium, San Francisco, CA, August 2009.Kim, R. H. (2011). Training educators in the Web 2 Era. In Conference of business education Statewide Advisory Committee, Sacramento, CA, April 2011.Kim, R. H., Makino, E., & Otto, J. (March 2012). Knowledge management for the millennials: Exploring social media to capture, share and learn beyond class time. San Diego, CA:

Western Academy of Management.Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.Ma, M. (2013, April 2). Coursera experiences glitches, growing pains. Retrieved from http://www.thedp.com/article/2013/03/coursera-experiences-glitches-growing-pains.Naidu, S. (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 362). Mahwah, NJ: L.

Erlbaum Associates.Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness basic IT skills training.

MIS Quarterly, 25(40), 401–426.Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1627–1644.Roblyer, M. D. (1999). Is choice important in distance learning? A study of student motives for taking internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels.

Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 157–171.Rogers, C. R. (1966). To facilitate learning. In M. Provus (Ed.), Innovations for time to teach. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association.Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: voices from experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 57–67.Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers &

Education, 52, 543–553.Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended

learning environments. Computers & Education, 55, 1721–1731.Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59, 316–326.Smith, R. M., & Haverkamp, K. K. (1977). Toward a theory of learning how to learn. Adult Education Quarterly, 28, 3–21.Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher

Education, 7(1), 59–70.Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: a research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, 1(3), 315–337.Taylor, B. (1995). Self-directed learning: revisiting an idea most appropriate for middle school students. In Paper presented at the combined meeting of the Great Lakes and

Southeast International Reading Association, Nashville, TN.Teo, T., Tan, S. C., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H., Chen, W. L., et al. (2010). The self-directed learning with technology scale (SDLTS) for young students: an initial development

and validation. Computers & Education, 55, 1764–1771.Tough, A. (1971). The adult’s learning projects. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: recent research and future directions. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(4), 250.Tyler-Smith, K. (2005). Early attrition among first time e-learners: a review of factors that contribute to dropout, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners

undertaking e-learning programs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73–85.Willging, P., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 105–118.