International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance

Vol. 40 No. 2 (2025)
Research Articles

Self-Regulation of E-learning and Students’ Divided Experiences: A Mixed Method Study

HTML PDF
Sanna Oinas
University of Helsinki
Bio
Raisa Carpelan
University of Helsinki
Bio
Lauri Heikonen
University of Helsinki
Bio
Risto Hotulainen
University of Helsinki
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2025.v40.i2.1382

Published 2025-10-20

How to Cite

Oinas, S., Carpelan, R., Heikonen, L., & Hotulainen, R. (2025). Self-Regulation of E-learning and Students’ Divided Experiences: A Mixed Method Study. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 40(2). https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2025.v40.i2.1382
Copyright Notice

Abstract

A mixed methods design was employed to study students’ self-regulation of e-learning to understand the phenomenon of the digital divide. Quantitative data consisting of the perceptions of comprehensive school students (N=29,863) on self-regulated learning (SRL) and equal access to digital devices were analyzed to identify subgroups. Qualitative data on e-learning experiences (n=13,310) were then analyzed according to their subgroups. The results indicated equal access to devices but strongly divided e-learning experiences between students. Those assessed as having the highest SRL (31%) provided remarkably detailed descriptions of how they developed new learning strategies, metacognitive, and digital skills during e-learning. In contrast, students belonging to the lowest SRL group (21%) expressed divided experiences; half of them claimed not to have learned anything. These students were often left without parental support. The current study provides empirical evidence of the digital divide and its realization during the pandemic, leading to deviant poor learning experiences for students with low SRL skills. Therefore, in the future, schools should create structures to recognize students who require support and ensure equal opportunities for meaningful e-learning.

Keywords: e-learning, self-regulated learning, digital divide, mixed methods, compulsory education

Une méthode mixte a été utilisée pour étudier l’autorégulation de l’apprentissage en ligne parmi les élèves d’établissements d’enseignement secondaire général, afin de comprendre le phénomène de la fracture numérique. Les données quantitatives concernant les perceptions des élèves (N=29,863) sur l’apprentissage autorégulé (AAR) et l’égalité d’accès aux appareils numériques ont été analysées pour identifier trois sous-groupes. Les données qualitatives des expériences d’apprentissage en ligne (n=13,310) ont ensuite été analysées selon des sous-groupes. Les résultats ont indiqué un accès égal aux appareils, mais des expériences d’apprentissage en ligne toujours fortement contrastées. Les élèves ayant le taux d’AAR le plus élevé (31 %) ont fourni des descriptions remarquablement détaillées de la manière dont ils ont acquis de nouvelles stratégies d’apprentissage, des compétences métacognitives et numériques dans le cadre de l’apprentissage en ligne, tandis que ceux ayant le taux d’AAR le plus bas (21 %) ont exprimé des expériences contrastées, et la moitié d’entre eux ont même affirmé n’avoir rien appris. Ces élèves étaient aussi souvent laissés sans soutien parental. La présente étude fournit des preuves empiriques sur la fracture numérique et sa réalisation pendant la pandémie, menant à des expériences d’apprentissage limitées, voire décalées, pour les élèves ayant de faibles compétences en AAR. Par conséquent, à l’avenir, les écoles devraient créer des structures permettant d’identifier les élèves qui ont besoin de soutien et d’assurer l’égalité des chances pour un apprentissage en ligne optimal.

Mots-clés : apprentissage en ligne, apprentissage autorégulé, fracture numérique, méthode mixte, enseignement obligatoire 

HTML PDF

References

  1. Anney, V. N. (2015). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 272–281.
  2. Anyan, F., Morote, R., Las Hayas, C., Gabrelli, S., Mazur, I., Gudmundsdottir, D. G., González, N., Królicka-Deregowska, A., Zwiefka, A., Olafsdottir, A. S., & Hjemdal, O. (2021). Measuring resilience across participating regions in the UPRIGHT EU Horizon 2020 project: properties of the resilience scale for adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629357
  3. Arnesen, K. T., Hveem, J., Short, C. R., West, R. E., & Barbour, M. K. (2018). K-12 online learning journal articles: trends from two decades of scholarship. Distance Education, 40(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553566
  4. Assaroudi, A., Nabavi, F. H., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117741667
  5. Barbour, M. K. (2018). A history of K-12 distance, online, and blended learning worldwide. In K. Kennedy, & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blending learning (pp. 21–40). Carnegie Mellon University, ETC Press.
  6. Barbour, M. K. (2022). 5 minutes on K-12 online learning with… a re-boot for educational leaders. In E. Baumgartner, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, R. E. Ferdig, R. Hartshorne, & C. Mouza (Eds.), A retrospective of teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic (pp. 65–70). AACE-Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  7. Chauke, T., & Dlamini, N. (2024). Exploring factors affecting the academic performance of young female students in an open and distance e-learning environment during Covid-19. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 39(1). https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1298
  8. Corno, L. (2011). Studying self-regulation habits. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 361–375). Routledge.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107754
  11. Dörrenbäcker-Ulrich, L., Weiꞵenfels, M., Russer, L., & Perels, F. (2021). Multimethod assessment of self-regulated learning in college students: different methods for different components. Instructional Science, 49, 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09533-2
  12. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–5, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645
  13. Efklides, A. (2018). Gifted students and self-regulated learning: the MASRL model and its implications for SRL. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 79–102, https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1556069
  14. Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  15. Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118
  16. Finnish Agency for Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for basic education, 2014. Publications 2016:5.
  17. Hanny, C. N., Arnesen, K. T., Guo, Q., Hansen, J., & Graham, C. R. (2023) Barriers and enablers to K-12 blended teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(4), 568–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1991865
  18. Huber, S. G., & Helm, C. (2020). COVID-19 and schooling: evaluation, assessment and accountability in times of crises—reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school barometer. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32, 237–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09322-y
  19. Hyejin, S. (2020). Technological innovation in public education in the era of COVID-19: focusing on distance education policy in South Korea. Asian Society for Innovation and Policy, 9(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.7545/ajip.2020.9.2.207
  20. Iiskala, T., Volet, S., Jones, C., Koretsky, M., & Vauras, M. (2021). Significance of forms and foci of metacognitive regulation in collaborative science learning of less and more successful outcome groups in diverse contexts. Instructional Science 49, 687–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09558-1
  21. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction 43, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005
  22. Johansson, S., Gulliksen, J., & Gustavsson, C. (2021) Disability digital divide: the use of the internet, smartphones, computers and tablets among people with disabilities in Sweden. Universal Access in the Information Society, 20, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00714-x
  23. Johnson, C. C., Walton, J. B., Strickler, L., & Elliott, J. B. (2023). Online teaching in K-12 education in the United States: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 93(3), 353–411. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221105550
  24. Kontturi, H. (2016). Oppimisen itsesäätelyn ilmeneminen ja kehittymisen tukeminen alakoulun oppimiskontekstissa. Juvenes Print. https://oulurepo.oulu.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/34914/isbn978-952-62-1094-0.pdf
  25. Letzel, V., Pozas, M., & Schneider, C. (2020). Energetic students, stressed parents, and nervous teachers: a comprehensive exploration of inclusive homeschooling during the COVID-19 crisis. Open Education Studies, 2(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2020-0122
  26. Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2012). Lifelong learning as a goal – do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared pupils? Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.001
  27. Mankki, V. (2021). Primary teachers’ principles for high quality distance teaching during COVID-19. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1939141
  28. Martin, F., Bacak, J., Polly, D., & Dymes, L. (2023). A systematic review of research on K12 online teaching and learning: comparison of research from two decades 2000 to 2019. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1940396
  29. Núñes, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., & Epstein, J. L. (2015). Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 375–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5
  30. Oinas, S., Hotulainen, R., Koivuhovi, S., Brunila, K., & Vainikainen, M.-P. (2022). Remote learning experiences of girls, boys and non-binary students. Computers and Education, 183, 104499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104499
  31. O’Neill, A. (2023). Was humpty dumpty right? Towards a functional definition of e-learning. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 2093–2115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11900-8
  32. Parycek, P., Sachs, M., & Schossboeck, J. (2011). Digital divide among youth: socio‐cultural factors and implications. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651111165393
  33. Pierce, G. L., & Cleary, P. F. (2024). The persistent educational digital divide and its impact on societal inequality. PLOS ONE 19(4), e0286795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286795
  34. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–529). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
  35. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
  36. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivational strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
  37. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
  38. Power, R., Kay, R., & Craig, C. (2023). The effects of COVID-19 on higher-education teaching practices. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2023.v38.i2.1255
  39. Reichelt, M., Collischon, M., & Eberl, A. (2019). School tracking and its role in social reproduction: reinforcing educational inheritance and the direct effects of social origin. British Journal of Sociology, 70, 1323–1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12655
  40. Sahlberg, P. (2021). Does the pandemic help us make education more equitable? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 20(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09284-4
  41. Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics 34(8), 1607–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
  42. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959
  43. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2015). New media and the digital divide. In J. D. Wright (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 787–792). Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.95086-4
  44. Verstege, S., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Diederen, J. (2019). Relations between students' perceived levels of self-regulation and their corresponding learning behavior and outcomes in a virtual experiment environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.020
  45. Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: and integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584
  46. Xu, J. (2021). Empirically derived profiles of homework purposes in eleventh grade students: a latent profile analysis. Current Psychology, 42, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01987-y
  47. Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617