In digital learning environments, learners need to regulate their learning, yet many do not engage in effective self-regulated learning strategies. Prompts can scaffold these processes, but their effectiveness may depend on their specificity and alignment with learners’ ongoing learning behavior. The purpose of this study is to address the limited evidence on the effects of generic, specific, and behavior-adaptive prompts on learning processes and outcomes.
This study (n = 64) uses an experimental between-subjects design investigating generic (GP), specific (SP) and adaptive specific (AP) and no prompts with regard to learning performance, perceived learning support and navigation behavior.
No significant group differences were found for declarative knowledge, whereas significant differences emerged for knowledge transfer, perceived learning support and navigation behavior. Independently of the experimental condition, higher transfer performance was associated with navigation that deviated more strongly from the course structure.
Future research should investigate learners’ interactions with and reactions to prompts, for example through eye-tracking, screen-recording, and brief self-report measures.
By comparing fixed generic, fixed specific, adaptive specific and no prompting, this study considers prompt specificity and behavior-contingent adaptivity together. It also combines learning performance and perceived learning support with trace-based navigation behavior. Fixed generic prompts were less effective for knowledge transfer than adaptive specific prompts or no prompting, while adaptive specific prompts did not outperform fixed specific prompts or the control group. The findings therefore challenge the assumption that providing prompts or increasing their adaptivity is inherently beneficial and highlight the importance of prompt specificity, timing and fit with learners’ ongoing behavior.
