2. Dependent variables

It comprises six dependent variables: learning effectiveness, learning motivation, self-efficacy, reflective ability, cognitive load, and technology acceptance. When the students have completed the learning, the system will display the learning results in the post-learning test. The study uses an independent sample *t*-test analysis to explore the differences between the control group and the experimental group before and after the test. Then, the covariate analysis was used to compare learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and reflective ability before and after the changes from the questionnaire results. Finally, the study uses an independent sample *t*-test analysis to examine the results of learners' acceptance of technology and cognitive load after learning.

3. Control variables

The variables work to strengthen the study's internal validity of this study and prevent against unrelated variables. Thus, the teaching materials and learning systems used in the control group and the experimental group must be the same, and the "Divide-and-Conquer" in the algorithm, "Dynamic Programming", "The Greedy Approach", and "Backtracking" are the four units of this study. A pre-test was used to make sure that both sets of students had the same prior algorithmic knowledge before the learning activities began. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

### *3.2. System Interface 3.2. System Interface*

This study uses distance education and the peer self-regulated system, and the following is a description of the system function and system screen. This study uses distance education and the peer self-regulated system, and the following is a description of the system function and system screen.

The system's peer grouping rooms: in each study session, the system will set seven periods for peers to choose freely. The system will limit the number of students in each The system's peer grouping rooms: in each study session, the system will set seven periods for peers to choose freely. The system will limit the number of students in each

session to four, with two of them being high achievers and the other two being low achievers. If the number of high achievers or low achievers reaches two, they will no longer be

Self-regulated learning goal setting: learners can set individual goals for this learning unit based on their past learning experiences and the goals of the team learning in this group room (Figure 3). The system will measure the learning effectiveness based on the learning goals set by the students themselves, as the study [12] suggests, when students

can achieve their self-set goals, they can increase their motivation to learn..

**Figure 2.** Self-regulated learning goal setting form.

session to four, with two of them being high achievers and the other two being low achievers. If the number of high achievers or low achievers reaches two, they will no longer be able to join the session, and the system will hide the session option (Figure 2). session to four, with two of them being high achievers and the other two being low achievers. If the number of high achievers or low achievers reaches two, they will no longer be able to join the session, and the system will hide the session option (Figure 2).

This study uses distance education and the peer self-regulated system, and the fol-

**Control Variable**

• Preschool Testing • Prior Knowledge • Course Materials • Distance Self-Regulated Learning System

**Dependent Variable** • Learning Effectiveness • Learning Motivation • Self-Efficacy • Reflective Ability • Cognitive Load • Technology Acceptance

The system's peer grouping rooms: in each study session, the system will set seven periods for peers to choose freely. The system will limit the number of students in each

lowing is a description of the system function and system screen.

*Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

**Figure 2.** Self-regulated learning goal setting form. **Figure 2.** Self-regulated learning goal setting form.

**Figure 1.** Conceptual Framework.

*3.2. System Interface* 

**Learning Achievement**

• High Achievement • Low Achievement

**Independent Variable Learning Strategies**

• Peer Self-Regulated Learning Mechanism • General Self-Regulated Learning Mechanism

Self-regulated learning goal setting: learners can set individual goals for this learning unit based on their past learning experiences and the goals of the team learning in this group room (Figure 3). The system will measure the learning effectiveness based on the learning goals set by the students themselves, as the study [12] suggests, when students Self-regulated learning goal setting: learners can set individual goals for this learning unit based on their past learning experiences and the goals of the team learning in this group room (Figure 3). The system will measure the learning effectiveness based on the learning goals set by the students themselves, as the study [12] suggests, when students can achieve their self-set goals, they can increase their motivation to learn. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

can achieve their self-set goals, they can increase their motivation to learn..

**Figure 3.** Self-regulated learning goal setting. **Figure 3.** Self-regulated learning goal setting.

status (Figure 4).

**Figure 4.** Peer progress.

the explanation (Figure 6).

part of it that they do not understand (Figure 5).

Peer progress: during the learning process, the progress bar at the bottom allows you

Peer assistance: if a student responds to a question incorrectly, she or he may seek peer assistance. However, they must first reflect on the question and identify the specific

When a learner is chosen to be a helper, the current video will be paused and the question from the requester will pop up. The helper will reply to the learner after giving

Peer progress: during the learning process, the progress bar at the bottom allows you to see the progress of the peers, and you can use it to help you improve your own learning status (Figure 4). Peer progress: during the learning process, the progress bar at the bottom allows you to see the progress of the peers, and you can use it to help you improve your own learning status (Figure 4).


**Figure 3.** Self-regulated learning goal setting.

*Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

**Figure 4.** Peer progress. **Figure 4.** Peer progress.

Peer assistance: if a student responds to a question incorrectly, she or he may seek peer assistance. However, they must first reflect on the question and identify the specific Peer assistance: if a student responds to a question incorrectly, she or he may seek peer assistance. However, they must first reflect on the question and identify the specific part of it that they do not understand (Figure 5). *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

> Peer feedback function: after the peers finished the learning activity, the tutor and tutee can enter the peer feedback room to complete a feedback form and evaluate the per-

> Self-regulated learning effectiveness view: once a student completes a learning task, the system will display his or her learning effectiveness on the page. The report includes learning units, learning time, test scores, peer averages, grade curves, and the number of times the students assisted their peers and received help. This is intended to help promote


part of it that they do not understand (Figure 5).

**Figure 5.** Seeking peer assistance. **Figure 5.** Seeking peer assistance.

**Figure 6.** Peer assistance.

self-regulated skills (Figure 7).

formance of both parties during the real-time instruction (Figure 6).

When a learner is chosen to be a helper, the current video will be paused and the question from the requester will pop up. The helper will reply to the learner after giving the explanation (Figure 6). tutee can enter the peer feedback room to complete a feedback form and evaluate the performance of both parties during the real-time instruction (Figure 6).

Peer feedback function: after the peers finished the learning activity, the tutor and


*Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

**Figure 6.** Peer assistance. **Figure 6.** Peer assistance.

**Figure 5.** Seeking peer assistance.

Self-regulated learning effectiveness view: once a student completes a learning task, the system will display his or her learning effectiveness on the page. The report includes Peer feedback function: after the peers finished the learning activity, the tutor and tutee can enter the peer feedback room to complete a feedback form and evaluate the performance of both parties during the real-time instruction (Figure 6).

learning units, learning time, test scores, peer averages, grade curves, and the number of times the students assisted their peers and received help. This is intended to help promote self-regulated skills (Figure 7). Self-regulated learning effectiveness view: once a student completes a learning task, the system will display his or her learning effectiveness on the page. The report includes learning units, learning time, test scores, peer averages, grade curves, and the number of times the students assisted their peers and received help. This is intended to help promote self-regulated skills (Figure 7). *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

**Figure 7.** Self-regulated learning effectiveness view. peers and forecast their scores, learning time, and the number of times they offered help **Figure 7.** Self-regulated learning effectiveness view.

with 56 in the experimental group and 56 in the control group.

*3.3. Experimental Design* 

3.3.2. Grouping Method

3.3.3. Learning Process

mogeneous group.

3.3.1. Participants

The participants in this experiment were 112 college students in the department of information management. They were divided into the experimental and control groups,

The experimental group used the best grouping method proposed by Chen [46] to conduct paired groupings of students. After sorting the students' pre-test scores from large to small, the median was used as the standard value. The number of people closest to the standard value was taken as a homogeneous group, and the rest of the students were grouped into a heterogeneous group. In order to divide both groups evenly, 28 people are divided into the homogeneous group (a group of 4 people), with 7 groups, and 28 people are divided into the heterogeneous group (a group of 4 people), with 7 groups.

This study discusses the effect of using a distance peer learning mechanism on students' learning effectiveness and analyses the effect of students' learning outcomes with different learning achievements during the self-regulated learning process (Figure 8).

Students in the control group used a general, distance learning self-regulated system in which learners set their learning goals before learning. During the learning process, there are unit tests. If the learner answers the questions incorrectly, the system will give an analysis directly. At the end of the learning process, students can examine their learning results. They are expected to enhance their learning by adjusting their learning strategies. The system also collected learners' scores to compare with those of the experimental group. On the other hand, students in the experimental group were taught using a distance learning system with a peer self-regulated learning mechanism. Students in the experimental group will be classified into three categories of academic achievement based on their pre-test scores: high achievement, moderate achievement, and low achievement. Meanwhile, the high-achievement and low-achievement groups will be combined into a heterogeneous group, while the moderate-achievement group will be combined into a ho-

Before learning, the experimental group can set their team's learning goals with their

### *3.3. Experimental Design*

### 3.3.1. Participants

The participants in this experiment were 112 college students in the department of information management. They were divided into the experimental and control groups, with 56 in the experimental group and 56 in the control group.

### 3.3.2. Grouping Method

The experimental group used the best grouping method proposed by Chen [46] to conduct paired groupings of students. After sorting the students' pre-test scores from large to small, the median was used as the standard value. The number of people closest to the standard value was taken as a homogeneous group, and the rest of the students were grouped into a heterogeneous group. In order to divide both groups evenly, 28 people are divided into the homogeneous group (a group of 4 people), with 7 groups, and 28 people are divided into the heterogeneous group (a group of 4 people), with 7 groups.

### 3.3.3. Learning Process

This study discusses the effect of using a distance peer learning mechanism on students' learning effectiveness and analyses the effect of students' learning outcomes with different learning achievements during the self-regulated learning process (Figure 8).

Students in the control group used a general, distance learning self-regulated system in which learners set their learning goals before learning. During the learning process, there are unit tests. If the learner answers the questions incorrectly, the system will give an analysis directly. At the end of the learning process, students can examine their learning results. They are expected to enhance their learning by adjusting their learning strategies. The system also collected learners' scores to compare with those of the experimental group. On the other hand, students in the experimental group were taught using a distance learning system with a peer self-regulated learning mechanism. Students in the experimental group will be classified into three categories of academic achievement based on their pre-test scores: high achievement, moderate achievement, and low achievement. Meanwhile, the high-achievement and low-achievement groups will be combined into a heterogeneous group, while the moderate-achievement group will be combined into a homogeneous group.

Before learning, the experimental group can set their team's learning goals with their peers and forecast their scores, learning time, and the number of times they offered help and received help from their peers. During the learning process, they can study together with their peers and watch their learning progress to improve their own learning status. There will be unit tests during the study. When learners answer a question incorrectly, they can ask for help from their peers. At the end of the study, they can watch the average score of their peers and the set and adjust their learning goals themselves.

The experiment was conducted for 4 weeks, with each week lasting 50 min. At the end of the experiment, tests and questionnaires will be administered to analyse the effects of a peer self-regulated learning mechanism on students' learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, reflective ability, motivation, cognitive load, and technology acceptance. The procedure is as follows:

and received help from their peers. During the learning process, they can study together with their peers and watch their learning progress to improve their own learning status. There will be unit tests during the study. When learners answer a question incorrectly, they can ask for help from their peers. At the end of the study, they can watch the average

The experiment was conducted for 4 weeks, with each week lasting 50 min. At the end of the experiment, tests and questionnaires will be administered to analyse the effects of a peer self-regulated learning mechanism on students' learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, reflective ability, motivation, cognitive load, and technology acceptance. The proce-

score of their peers and the set and adjust their learning goals themselves.

**Figure 8.** Experimental flowchart. **Figure 8.** Experimental flowchart.

3.3.4. Research Tool 3.3.4. Research Tool

dure is as follows:

• Learning Materials and Learning Effectiveness Quiz: • Learning Materials and Learning Effectiveness Quiz:

The content of the textbook used in this study is an algorithm course, and 4 units are selected as the learning topics, namely "Divide-and-Conquer", "Dynamic Programming", "The Greedy Approach", and "Backtracking".

The learning achievement test is divided into "effectiveness of the pre-test" and "effectiveness of the post-learning test". Before the experimental activity, a pre-learning test will be carried out on the learner. The test content is algorithm-related questions, with a total of 5 questions and a total score of 100 points. The pre-test is to determine whether learners have the same prior knowledge before participating in the activity, and to use this as a standard to classify learners' learning achievements into three categories, namely, high, medium, and low achievement. High- and low-achievement students are classified as a

heterogeneous group, while middle-achievement students are classified as a homogeneous group. Further, using S-shaped grouping in the homogeneous group, middle-achieving learners will also be divided into the two groups of high and low achievement based on their level of achievement.

After the experimental activity, a post-learning test is conducted for the learners. The post-learning test is based on the teaching material in the learning activity. The teacher will select the test questions related to the content of the teaching material. The test content is the unit content of the learning video. There are 5 questions in total. The score is 100 points. It mainly analyses the impact of using a distance peer learning mechanism on learners' learning effectiveness, and deeply analyses the impact of students' effectiveness with different learning achievements.


### 3.3.5. Analytical Method

The analysis of the experimental results of this study is carried out using two analysis methods, "independent sample *t*-test" and "covariate analysis". Firstly, a pre-class test was implemented in both groups using the independent sample *t*-test to determine whether they all had the same prior knowledge before participating in the activity. After the experimental activities, a post-learning test will be given to the learners. The post-learning test will be based on the teaching materials in the learning activities. The teacher will select the test questions related to the content covered in the teaching materials.

The test contains the entirety of the instructional video material and consists of 100 points. Its main focus is on analyzing the effect of the distance peer learning mechanism on the learning effectiveness of both groups during the self-regulated learning process. Meanwhile, the study further analyses the homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of the experimental group, which aims to explore whether there is a significant difference in the learning outcomes of high-achieving students. In addition, a post-learning questionnaire is implemented to examine how learners' learning motivation, self-efficacy, cognitive load, and technology acceptance changed during the entire learning activity.

The survey results are utilised to help explain the findings of the statistical test.

### **4. Results**

### *4.1. Learning Performance*

In order to find out whether the students in the experimental and control groups had the same basic algorithmic skills, a pre-test was conducted before the experimental activity and the differences in the prior knowledge of the students in the experimental and control groups in terms of algorithms were analysed using an independent samples *t*-test. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1. It was found that there was no significant difference between the pre-test scores of the experimental and control groups (*t* = 0.25, *p* = 0.803 > 0.05); therefore, it can be considered that the experimental and control groups have the comparable basic algorithmic ability.

**Table 1.** Pre-test of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


The experimental group and the control group were further divided into high and low achievement samples for the independent sample *t*-test. The analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the pre-test scores of high and low achievement learners in the experimental and control groups (*t* = 0.98, *p* = 0.749 > 0.05) and (*t* = 0.84, *p* = 0.403 > 0.05).

The experimental group was further divided into homogeneous and heterogeneous groups to conduct an independent sample *t*-test. It was found that there was no significant difference between the homogeneous group and the heterogeneous group (*t* = 0.15, *p* = 0.748 > 0.05).

After the learning activities, to analyse whether there were significant differences in the student's learning outcomes in the experimental and control groups, a post-learning test will be implemented at the end of the learning activity. An independent sample *t*-test will be administered with the post-learning test results to discuss the difference in algorithmic ability between the experimental and control groups. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. The post-learning test scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group (*t* = −2.05, *p* = 0.008 < 0.01, *d* = −0.501). Therefore, the experimental group using the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism helped to improve the students' learning effectiveness.

Further, post-learning tests were administered to high achievement and low achievement learners, and independent sample *t*-tests were administered using the results of the post-learning tests. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. The post-learning test scores of experimental high achievements were significantly higher than those of control high achievement (*t* = −2.18, *p* = 0.000 < 0.001, *d* = −1.043). The post-learning test scores of experimental low achievements were also significantly higher than those of control

low achievement (*t* = −1.29, *p* = 0.025 < 0.05, *d* = −0.603). Thus, both experimental high achievement and experimental low achievement using distance peer self-regulated learning mechanisms help to improve learners' learning effectiveness.

**Table 2.** Post-learning test of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


**Table 3.** Post-learning test of learners with different learning achievements in the experimental and control groups.


\*\*\* *p* < 0.001; \* *p* < 0.05.

Pre-tests were administered to both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of learners, and independent sample *t*-tests were conducted with the pre-test scores to investigate the differences in the algorithmic abilities of different groups of learners. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4, where the learning effectiveness of the heterogeneous group was significantly higher than that of the homogeneous group (*t* = 2.05, *p* = 0.04 < 0.05, *d* = 0.531). The results showed that the heterogeneous group of learners who adopted the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism demonstrated enhanced learning effectiveness.

**Table 4.** Post-learning test of learners in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups.


\* *p* < 0.05.

### *4.2. Learning Motivation of Learners between the Two Group*

The analysis of the pre-questionnaire on learning motivation was conducted using an independent sample *t*-test. As shown in Table 5, there was no significant difference in the learning motivation between the experimental and control groups (*t* = 0.84, *p* = 0.40 > 0.05).

**Table 5.** Pre-questionnaire of motivation of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


After the learning activities, the two groups were given a post-questionnaire of learning motivation and the results were analysed by ANCOVA with the pre-questionnaire of learning motivation as a covariate. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 6, the learning motivation of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (*F* = 5.49, *p* = 0.023 < 0.05). Therefore, the experimental group that adopted the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism demonstrated enhanced learning motivation.


**Table 6.** Post-questionnaire of motivation of learners between the experimental group and the control group.

### *4.3. Self-Efficacy of Learners between the Two Group*

The pre-questionnaire of self-efficacy was analysed using independent samples *t*test. As shown in Table 7, there was no significant difference in motivation between the experimental and control groups (*t* = −0.97, *p* = 0.336 > 0.05).

**Table 7.** Pre-questionnaire of self-efficacy of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


After the learning activities, the two groups were given a post-questionnaire of selfefficacy and the results were analysed by ANCOVA with the pre-questionnaire of selfefficacy as a covariate. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8, the self-efficacy of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (*F* = 4.03, *p* = 0.043 < 0.05). Therefore, the experimental group that adopted the distance peer selfregulated learning mechanism demonstrated enhanced self-efficacy.

**Table 8.** Post-questionnaire of self-efficacy of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


*4.4. Reflective Ability of Learners between the Two Group*

the experimental and control groups (*t* = −0.41, *p* = 0.87 > 0.05).

The pre-questionnaire of reflective ability was analysed using independent samples *t*-test. As shown in Table 9, there was no significant difference in reflective ability between

**Table 9.** Pre-questionnaire of reflective ability of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


After the learning activities, the two groups were given a post-questionnaire of reflective ability and the results were analysed by ANCOVA with the pre-questionnaire of reflective ability as a covariate. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 10, the reflective ability of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (*F* = 0.786, *p* = 0.03 < 0.05). Therefore, the experimental group that adopted the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism demonstrated enhanced reflective ability.


**Table 10.** Post-questionnaire of reflective ability of learners between the experimental group and the control group.

### *4.5. Cognitive Load of Learners between the Two Group*

After the learning activities, the cognitive load questionnaire was administered to the experimental and control group students, and the questionnaire was divided into two aspects: mental workload and mental effort. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 11. The students in the experimental group achieved significant results in both mental workload (*t* = 3.12, *p* = 0.04 < 0.05, *d* = 0.710) and mental effort (*t* = 2.63, *p* = 0.03 < 0.05, *d* = 1.034). Therefore, although the content of the materials in the experimental and control groups were the same, the peer self-regulated learning mechanism helped the learners not only to improve their own learning status, but also to seek peer assistance for problems that could not be solved so that the learners could solve subsequent problems, thus reducing mental workload and mental effort.

**Table 11.** Questionnaire of cognitive load of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


\* *p* < 0.05.

### *4.6. Technology Acceptance of Learners between the Two Group*

A technology acceptance questionnaire was administered to students in the experimental and control groups after the learning activities, and an independent sample *t*-test was used. As shown in Table 12, the acceptance of distance peer self-regulated learning system by the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group (*t* = −3.33, *p* = 0.009 < 0.01, *d* = −0.784). The students who adopted the distance peer self-regulated learning system found the interface of the system clear and easy to understand and operate.

**Table 12.** Questionnaire of technology acceptance of learners between the experimental group and the control group.


\*\* *p* < 0.01.

### *4.7. Interview Method*

To understand more about the experimental group learners' ideas of adopting the distance peer self-regulated learning system, four experimental group learners were invited to conduct individual interviews after the experimental activity: Homogeneous group A, Homogeneous group B, Heterogeneous group C, and Heterogeneous group D. The interviews focused on the interviewees' thoughts on the learning system, the areas for improvement and the learning mechanism.

Based on the results of the interviews, the core categories of the interviews were divided into two main categories: "Peer intervention" and "Reflecting on the theme and

the function of helping peers". "Peer intervention" is intended to analyse the impact of peer intervention on students. "Peer intervention" makes students more engaged, and watching peers' learning progress during the learning process can make students more motivated to continue learning and can increase students' effectiveness and motivation.

"Reflecting on the theme and the function of helping peers" is intended to analyse the impact of reflecting on the theme and helping peers' learning. Reflecting on the theme and the function of helping peers can effectively help students develop a deeper understanding in their learning. The study further found that the homogeneous group was less active in helping their peers and did not receive immediate feedback when they were asked. In contrast, the heterogeneous group was more active in helping their peers, and the low achievers in the heterogeneous group asked their peers more often than the high achievers. Therefore, from the interview analysis, it can roughly be inferred that the heterogeneous group of learners is more suitable to use this mechanism for learning.

### **5. Conclusions and Discussion**

(1) Learners who used a distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism can help improve their learning effectiveness compared with those who used a general distance self-disciplined learning system.

Under the condition that both groups of students have the equivalent basic ability of calculation, the analysis of this experiment shows that the students in the experimental group have significantly better scores on the learning effectiveness scale than the control group after the learning activities. During the interview, it can be found that although it is stressful to see the learning progress of peers while studying, it can also improve one's own learning status and make one more focused on the teaching materials. This echoes Zimmerman's [53] self-regulated learning concept, which suggests that the peers with whom you are learning can significantly affect your learning outcomes.

Apart from learning together and choosing learning objects, learners can also gain support and assistance from their peers, thereby improving learning motivation and learning effectiveness. This also echoes the earlier discussion about how peer intervention can effectively improve students' learning performance. It follows that using the distance peer self-regulated learning system developed by this study in the algorithm learning course has the benefit of enhancing the learning effect.

(2) High-achievers using the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism can help improve learners' learning effectiveness compared with those high-achievers in the general distance self-regulated learning system.

As the students in both groups had similar prior knowledge of the subject of the algorithms, the analysis results further revealed that the learners in the experimental group with high achievement had significantly better scores on the learning effectiveness test than those in the control group. In light of findings from the interview, students with high academic achievement in the experimental group will improve their sense of accomplishment by helping their peers. Apart from more goals setting in the learning process, students with high academic achievement demonstrate their behaviours during examination and evaluation of their learning progress [47]. While offering responses to peers, they also review the learning content, which helps them focus more on the learning activities. Based on the above findings, the results are consistent with the concept of self-explanation associated with the development of students' reflection. While offering the response to peers, students would think of how to give explanations (self-explanations) and then integrate prior knowledge and external knowledge through reflection. While conducting self-explanation and reflection, they are able to identify possible gaps in knowledge and find out the solutions in order to produce better quality descriptive knowledge, which aligns with VanLehn, Johns, and Chi's [42] statement on the development of descriptive knowledge. The findings are also echoed in the interview that reflected on the topic; along with assisting peers, the process can effectively help students in their learning. Since a deeper understanding can be gained, it thus enhances learning effectiveness. Students with high academic achievement

in the experimental group are more aware of arranging learning plans according to their own learning conditions. Therefore, in the algorithm learning course, it can be concluded that the distance peer self-regulated learning system developed by this research will have the advantage of enhancing the learning effect for the experimental group's high achievers.

(3) Low-achievers using the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism can improve their learning effectiveness compared with low-achievers in the general distance self-regulated learning system.

As the students in both groups had similar prior knowledge of the subject of the algorithms, the analysis results further found that the learners in the experimental group with low achievement had significantly better scores on the learning effectiveness test than those in the control group. During the interview, it can be found that when learners in the control group with low achievement answer questions incorrectly, they can seek help from their peers. However, they must first respond to the questions and explain the parts that they do not understand. This method not only reduces learners' feelings of loss and frustration during their learning, but it also helps them internalise the knowledge given to them by their peers, thereby achieving the goal of teaching and learning. This echoes the extremely important role of reflection in the construction of knowledge, which can effectively improve the learning performance of the learner [54].

Reflection is a crucial learning activity that can increase the depth of learning and enhance learning [40]. Reflection is an important learning activity that can increase the depth of learning and improve learning, which echoes the previous analysis results. Students reflect on achieving the goal of teaching and learning. This echoes the extremely important role of reflection in the construction of knowledge, which can effectively improve the learning performance of the learner [54], which, in turn, echoes the previous analysis results. Reflecting on topics and assisting peers can effectively help students gain a deeper understanding of learning, thereby enhancing learning effectiveness. Therefore, in the process of learning algorithms, it can be inferred that the use of the distance peer self-regulated learning system developed by this research has the benefit of improving the learning effect for the low achievers in the experimental group.

(4) In comparison to homogeneous group learners, the heterogeneous group learners who used the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism can improve learners' learning effect.

In this study, the experimental group is divided into two groups: the homogeneous group and the heterogeneous group. The results of the analysis further found that after the activities, the heterogeneous group had significantly better scores on the learning effectiveness test than the homogeneous group. Therefore, it can roughly be concluded that the learners in the heterogeneous group would benefit more from using the distance peer self-disciplined learning mechanism. Based on the interview, it was found that the students in the heterogeneous group were more active than those in the homogeneous group in terms of the number of times they assisted their peers. Immediate feedback can be provided to low achievers in heterogeneous groups. Students can increase their sense of accomplishment and reduce their frustration by helping their peers and being assisted, which helps them learn again. Students become more focused and motivated to work harder on the teaching materials, aligning with the learning content of the self-regulated learning concept proposed by Zimmerman [53]. The learning system will provide students with their learning history so that they can assess their progress and the effectiveness and status of their peers' learning. The learning situation aligns with the analysis results from the previous discussion. The learners in the heterogeneous group of the experimental group are more suitable to use this mechanism for learning. Therefore, in the algorithm learning course, it can be concluded that the use of the distance peer self-regulated learning system developed by this research has the benefit of improving the learning effect of the experimental group's heterogeneous group learners.

(5) Learners who used the distance peer self-regulated learning mechanism have a significant impact on their learning motivation, self-efficacy, reflective ability, and cognitive load after learning.

The results of the questionnaire analysis found that the learning motivation, selfefficacy, and reflection abilities of the students in the experimental group after learning were significantly better than those before the experiment in the distance peer self-disciplined learning system. The learning motivation, self-efficacy, performance, and reflective ability in the experimental group were also better than those of the control group. With the assistance of the peer self-regulated learning mechanism, the cognitive load of the learners can be reduced at the same time. This leads back to the previous discussion about how peer intervention can motivate students to work harder, continue learning, and improve their learning motivation. As a result, it can be concluded in the algorithm learning course that the distance peer self-regulated learning system developed in this study can effectively improve learners' learning motivation, self-efficacy, and reflection ability. Although the learners in the experimental group put more pressure on their peers to intervene at the beginning, they became more motivated to continue learning after receiving assistance from their peers and feedback from the learners. Therefore, the assistance of the peer self-regulated learning mechanism can not only sharpen the learners' own learning status, but also seek peer assistance for unsolvable problems. Learners can solve subsequent problems, thereby reducing mental load and mental effort. This study's distance peerself-regulated learning system demonstrated that peer assistance can effectively improve learners' learning effects in a distance learning setting.

However, some limitations must be taken into account, which are described in detail as follows:

(1) Sample limit

The samples for this study are from 112 students who are studying algorithmic courses in the Department of Information Management of a university in Taipei City, including 56 students in the experimental group and 56 in the control group. The sample size for this study is too small since it only includes university department students. Thus, the inference cannot be generalised to learners in other levels and grades; it can only be applied to learners who share the same characteristics as those in this study.

(2) Study subjects

The chosen learning activities of this study are associated with an algorithm with four thematic units: "Divide-and-Conquer", "Dynamic Programming", "The Greedy Approach", and "Backtracking". The material is restricted to the article in this study. Thus, it remains to be determined if the findings of this study may be applied to other subjects or groups. The distance peer self-regulated learning system developed by this research shows that the experimental group students' outcomes in the algorithm course are significantly superior to those of the control group students. Still, due to the intervention and support of peers, learners can compare their learning status with that of their peers, and then find the learning strategies that suit them. According to the interview, the learning mode of fourperson groups can be altered to two-person groups, which can better cater to low-achieving learners. In the future, the system will be able to support "Sharing Note". When studying, students are able to highlight key ideas and make notes in their textbooks. Shared notes can organise peers' notes, making it simple for learners to learn from others, observe how their peers make notes, and understand what the other party learns.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, Y.-C.K. and B.-Y.C.; methodology, Y.-C.K.; software, B.-Y.C.; validation, Y.-C.K., H.-C.K.L. and Y.-H.L.; formal analysis, B.-Y.C.; investigation, B.-Y.C.; resources, Y.-C.K.; data curation, H.-C.K.L. and T.-H.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-C.K.; writing review and editing, Y.-H.L.; visualization, Y.-C.K.; supervision, H.-C.K.L. and T.-H.W.; project administration, Y.-H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## **References**


**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
