Mapping educators’ insights of student problem-solving difficulties while implementing video-assisted self-regulated learning training in classrooms
and 
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Nov 06, 2024
Page range: 72 - 86
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2024-0005
Keywords
© 2024 Guy Cohen et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
STEM and non-STEM quartile calculations of difficulty numbers in 32 problem-solving tasks
| Valid | Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | 25th percentile | 50th percentile | 75th percentile | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEM students’ difficulties | 32 | 0 | 3.68 | 1.89 | 1.00 | 7.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.00 |
| Non-STEM students’ difficulties | 32 | 0 | 3.84 | 2.74 | 0.00 | 10.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
The problem-solving framework developed within the VAST training intervention
| Learning stages | Forethought | Performance | Reflection | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRL strategies related to time | (S1) Time planning | (S4) Time management | (S7) Time management evaluation | |
(T1.1) Define deadline for final solution. (T1.2) Define steps deadlines. (T1.3) Assess schedule feasibility. (T1.4) Use an assistive tool to document the planned schedule. |
(T4.1) Monitor planned schedule. (T4.2) Detect time deviations. (T4.3) Reschedule deadlines. (T4.4) Assess reschedule feasibility. |
(T7.1) Detect time deviations. (T7.2) Define reasons for time deviations. (T7.3) Use time deviations reasoning to explore alternatives for future problems. |
||
| Problem-solving strategies integrating other SRL strategies (critical thinking, elaboration, and feedback) | (S2) Problem identification | (S3) Problem exploration | (S5) Solution development | (S6) Solution evaluation |
(T2.1) Define the problem in your own words to ensure understanding. (T2.2) Determine the rules and constraints. (T2.3) Define criterion for judging solution. (T2.4) Break the problem down into smaller questions. (T2.5) Reflect on the activity in this step. |
(T3.1) Identify related topics based on prior knowledge. (T3.2) Determine the given/known information that might assist in solving the problem. (T3.3) Identify and complete information gap necessary for moving forward with the solution. (T3.4) Pose operational questions concerning the problem. (T3.5) Reflect on the activity in this step. |
(T5.1) Identify candidate solutions. (T5.2) Analyze candidate solutions - using constraints and criteria. (T5.3) Investigate needed information for each solution. (T5.4) Choose the best solution according to the criteria. (T5.5) Implement a detailed work plan. (T5.6) Reflect on the activity in this step. |
(T6.1) Present and communicate the solution (when relevant). (T6.2) Justify/defend/Update the solution. (T6.3) Monitor the problem-solving process. (T6.4) Improve the problem-solving process. (T6.5) Reflect on the activity in this step. |
|
Quartile calculation of difficulty numbers in 32 problem-solving tasks
| Valid | Missing | Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | 25th percentile | 50th percentile | 75th percentile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Students’ difficulties | 32 | 0 | 7.53 | 4.50 | 1.00 | 17.00 | 4.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 |
Examples of classifying teacher-reported student difficulties across problem-solving framework tasks during independent work
| Response ID | Teacher’s code | Teacher’s response | Classification difficulties per PS tasks | Classification difficulties per SRL phase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | T7 | ‘While performing the task, the students experienced difficulty. At first, the students did not understand where and what the problem is’. | T2.1–T2.4 (Problem identification). | Forethought |
| ‘The students encountered difficulties in the phase of problem exploration and solution development; In problem exploration, the some of the students did not think deeply about what criteria they should take in order to plan the task and this affected the solution they proposed’. | T3.1–T3.4 (Problem exploration), T5.1–T5.5 (Solution development). | Forethought, Performance | ||
| ‘Students are not used to such complex tasks. Some students heavily depend on the teacher and do not apply the new knowledge they acquired independently; Instead, they request the teacher to repeat the instructional materials’. | T2.5, T3.5, T5.6 & T6.5 (Reflection on problem identification, problem exploration, solution development & solution evaluation steps). | Forethought, Performance, Reflection | ||
| 22 | T3 | ‘The Students encountered difficulty in creating a schedule and making edits to the times’. | T1.1–T1.3 (Time planning), T4.1–T4.4 (Time management), T7.1–T7.3 (Time management evaluation). | Forethought, Performance, Reflection |
| ‘It was not clear to the students how to define the problem and how to begin solving it’. | T2.1–T2.4 (Problem identification), T3.1–T3.4 (Problem exploration), | Forethought | ||
| ‘The students encountered difficulties related to self-reflection and selfevaluation’. | T2.5, T3.5, T5.6 & T6.5 (Reflection on problem identification, problem exploration, solution development & solution evaluation steps), T6.3– T6.4 (Monitor & Improving the problem-solving process). | Forethought, Performance, Reflection | ||
| 24 | T4 | ‘I had to repeat the task multiple times and address each student personally. They found it difficult to understand the task. Some managed to continue after overcoming the frustration with the assignment’. | T2.1–T2.5 (Problem identification). | Forethought |