Page 1 ... High demands on learners in web-based learning environments and ...... information in long-term memory that is unlimited in capacity and a reduction of .... sitemap. Alessi and Trollip (2001) recommend designers provide site maps or ... and knowledge generation tools that each of the tool function supports a.
THE USE OF COGNITIVE TOOLS IN WEB-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: A CASE STUDY
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF THE MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
EROL ÖZÇELIK
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES
AUGUST 2002
Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
______________________ Prof. Dr. Tayfur ÖZTÜRK Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
______________________ Asst. Prof. Dr. Soner YILDIRIM Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
______________________ Asst. Prof. Dr. Soner YILDIRIM Supervisor
Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Ömer GEBAN
_____________________
Assoc. Prof. Dr. M. Yasar ÖZDEN
_____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Soner YILDIRIM
_____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Zahide YILDIRIM
_____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Settar KOÇAK
_____________________
ABSTRACT
THE USE OF COGNITIVE TOOLS IN WEB-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: A CASE STUDY Özçelik, Erol
M.S., Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Soner Yildirim August 2002, 102 pages
High demands on learners in web-based learning environments and constraints of the human cognitive system cause disorientation and cognitive overload. These problems can be inhibited if appropriate cognitive tools are provided to support cognitive processes of learners. The purpose of this study was to explore the factors affecting the use of cognitive tools, how learners used these tools and to what extend cognitive tools support students’ learning in web-based learning environments.
The participants were 31 students who attended the “Computer Networks and Communication” course, which was delivered via the Internet. Data were obtained from group interviews, computer logs, questionnaires and surveys. The collected data were subjected to a content analysis.
iii
The results indicated that some factors such as learning strategies, prior knowledge, usability of tools, lack of orientation towards the tools, cost, and level of the course influenced the use of the cognitive tools.
Keywords: cognitive tools, web-based instruction, distance education
iv
ÖZ
BILISSEL ARAÇLARIN WEB TABANLI ÖGRENME ORTAMLARINDA KULLANIMI: BIR DURUM ÇALISMASI
Özçelik, Erol
Yüksek Lisans., Bilgisayar ve Ögretim Teknolojileri Egitimi Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Soner Yildirim Agustos 2002, 102 sayfa
Web-tabanli beklentiler
ve
insanoglunun
olarak karmasikliga bilissel
süreçlerini
problemleri
ögrenme
ortamlarinda bilissel
ögrencilerin
sistemindeki
üzerindeki
kisitliliklar
yüksek
onlarin
bilissel
ve asiri yüklenmelerine sebep olmaktadir. Ögrencilerin destekleyecek
azaltabilecektir.
Bu
uygun
bilissel
çalismanin
araçlarin
amaci,
saglanmasi
web-tabanli
bu
ögrenme
ortamlarinda bilissel araçlarin kullanimini etkileyen faktörleri, ögrencilerin bu araçlari nasil kullandiklarini ve araçlarin ögrenmeyi ne ölçüde destekledigini incelemektir.
Bu çalismanin katilimcilari
Internet üzerinden verilen “Bilgisayar Aglari
ve Iletisim” dersini alan 31 ögrencidir. Veriler grup görüsmeleri, bilgisayar kayitlari ve anketlerden toplanmistir. Toplanan veriler örüntü analizine tabi tutulmustur.
v
Sonuçlar
göstermistir
ki;
ögrencilerin
bilissel
araçlari
kullanimi
etkileyen faktörlerin bazilari ögrenme stratejileri, önbilgi, araçlarin kullanim kolayligi, araçlara yönelik yönlendirme eksikligi, maliyet, ve dersin düzeyidir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: bilissel araçlar, web-tabanli ögretim, uzaktan egitim
vi
To My Mother, Emine Özçelik
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank my thesis advisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Soner YILDIRIM for his guidance, insight and encouragement throughout the study.
I should also express my appreciation to examination committee members Prof. Dr. Ömer GEBAN, Assoc. Prof. Dr. M. Yasar ÖZDEN, Asst. Prof. Dr. Zahide YILDIRIM, Asst. Prof. Dr. Settar KOÇAK for their valuable suggestions and comments.
I offer my sincere thanks to Birikim Özgür, Ömer Delialioglu, Selçuk Özdemir,
Yasar
Kondakçi
and
my
other
friends
for
their
support
and
encouragement.
I would like to express my love to all the members of my family and my fiancée Nese Sahin for their patience, sympathy and support during the study.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ÖZ
……………………………………………………………………………………………iii
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..v
DEDICATION
……………………………………………………………………………………….vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES
…………………………………………………………………………..viii …………………………………………………………………………….ix
…………………………………………………………………………………..xii
LIST OF FIGURES
…………………………………………………………………………………xiii
CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to the Study.................................................................. 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................ 3 1.3 Purpose of the Study....................................................................... 4 1.4 Significance of the Study.................................................................. 5 1.5 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................ 5 2.LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 7 2.1 Distance Education.......................................................................... 7 2.2 Web-Based Instruction .................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Factors That Influence Learning via the WWW ................................ 9 2.3 Cognitive Tools ............................................................................. 10 2.3.1 Definitions of Cognitive Tools..................................................... 10
ix
2.3.2 Scope of Cognitive Tools ........................................................... 11 2.3.4 The Status of Cognitive Tools in Educational Applications of Computers .................................................................................................... 11 2.3.5 The Distinctions of Cognitive Tools from Other Tools ...................... 12 2.4 Psychological Foundations for Cognitive Tools .................................... 15 2.4.1 Cognitive Views of Learning ...................................................... 15 2.4.2 Cognitive Load Theory .............................................................. 16 2.4.3 Metacognition Theory ............................................................... 18 2.4.4 Mental Model Theory ................................................................ 20 2.4.5 Information Processing Theory .................................................. 22 2.5 Research Studies on Cognitive Tools ................................................ 26 3.METHOD........................................................................................... 28 3.1 Overall Design of the Study ............................................................ 28 3.2 Participants ................................................................................. 31 3.3 The Case..................................................................................... 32 3.4 Materials ..................................................................................... 33 3.4.1 Highlight ................................................................................ 34 3.4.2 Bookmark .............................................................................. 36 3.4.3 Notebook............................................................................... 37 3.4.5 Pagenote ............................................................................... 38 3.4.6 Search .................................................................................. 39 3.4.7Glossary ................................................................................. 40 3.4.8 History .................................................................................. 41 3.4.9 Sitemap................................................................................. 42 3.4.10 Note to Remember................................................................. 43 3.5 Data Collection Instruments............................................................ 44
x
3.6 Data Collection Techniques and Data Sources .................................... 47 3.7 Data Collection Procedures ............................................................. 48 3.8 Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................... 50 3.9 Limitations of the Study................................................................. 52 4. RESULTS .......................................................................................... 53 4.1 Factors That Influenced the Use of The Cognitive Tools........................ 53 4.2 Learners' Use of Cognitive Tools ...................................................... 60 4.3 Support Provided by the Cognitive Tools ........................................... 76 5.CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 82 5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................. 82 5.2 Implications for Practice................................................................. 85 5.3 Implications for Research............................................................... 87 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 90 APPENDICES A.Interview Guide (Görüsme Rehberi) ...................................................... 99 B.Survey Of Learning Aids and Opinions On The Necessity Of Cognitive Tools .101 C.Perceptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire .................102
xi
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4.1 Students' Learning Strategies………..………………………………………………………………55 4.2 Purposes of Learners’ Cognitive Tool Use………………………………………………………60 4.3 Criteria Used for the Classification of Learners’ Purpose of Tool Use……………61 4.4 Utilization of Highlight by Numbers……………………………………………………………….61 4.5 Utilization of Bookmark by Numbers……………………………………………………………..64 4.6 Utilization of Notebook by Numbers………………………………………………………………65 4.7 Utilization of Pagenote by Numbers……………………………………………………………….67 4.8 Utilization of Search by Numbers……………………………………………………………………69 4.9 Utilization of Glossary by Numbers………………………………………………………………..70 4.10 Utilization of History by Numbers………………………………………………………………..71 4.11 Utilization of Sitemap by Numbers………………………………………………………………71 4.12 Utilization of Note to Remember by Numbers…………………………………………….73 4.13 Number of Students Used Different Cognitive Tools……………………………………75 4.14 All Actions within the Web Site…………………………………………………………………….76 4.15.
Results
of
the
Perceptions
of
the
Usefulness
of
Cognitive
Tools
Questionnaires………………………………………………………………………………………………………77
xii
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES 2.1. Status of Cognitive Tools in Educational Applications of Computers ………….12 2.2 Three Dimensions of Cognitive Tools…………………………………………………………….14 2.3. Information Processing Model……………………………………………………………………….23 2.4 Cognitive Model of Knowledge Construction………………………………………………….24 3.1 Sample Screen of a Highlighted Passage……………………………………………………….35 3.2 Sample Screen for Deleting Highlighted Items……………………………………………..36 3.3 Sample Screen of Bookmark………………………………………………………………………….37 3.4 Sample Screen of Notebook…………………………………………………………………………..38 3.5 Sample Screen of a Content that a Pagenote is Added…………………………………39 3.6 Sample Screen of Search……………………………………………………………………………….40 3.7 Sample Screen of Glossary…………………………………………………………………………….41 3.8 Sample Screen of History……………………………………………………………………………….42 3.9 Sample Screen of Sitemap……………………………………………………………………………..43 3.10 Sample Screen of the Main Page that Note to Remember is Added…...…….44 3.11 An Example from the Analysis of Data………………………………………………………..51 4.1 Factors Influencing the Use of Cognitive Tools………………………………………………53 4.2 Cognitive Tool Use Frequencies of Students………………………………………………….75
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study When computers were first introduced to the market more than three decades ago, the computer industry needed a "critical applic ation" that makes purchasing a computer worthwhile. The first electronic spreadsheet called VisiCalc was considered as a critical application for business, but for years no critical application was developed for education (Alessi & Trollip, 2001). Although many tools and media have been adapted to educational purposes, few have been developed to facilitate learning (Jonassen, 1992). Nowadays people are talking about a new technology called World Wide Web that has more impact on education than other developments in instructional technology of the past 30 years (Alessi & Trollip, 2001). People and schools tend to buy more and more computers to access the resources on the Web.
There is an increasing pressure on higher education institutions to change with the information age, because of the evolving learning needs of society and the impact of new technologies on teaching and learning (Bates 2000, p8). World Wide Web has the potential to meet this need of change by providing opportunities to create “well designed, learner-centered, engaging, interactive,
1
affordable, efficient, easily accessible, flexible, meaningful, distributed and facilitated” learning environments (Khan 2001, p5).
Turkish Higher Educational System is facing difficulties to accommodate the large number of applicants to Turkish Universities for example in 1998-1999 academic year around high school graduates took the test and only about 280,000 of out of 1,400,000 are admitted to conventional higher education institutions (Ozkul, 2001; Yazici, Altas, Demiray, 2001). The impossibility of increasing capacity of conventional schools in a short time and the need for efficient use of human resources make distance teaching a very rational alternative to increase an overall education level in Turkey.
As the popularity of the Web is growing, the attention to its use as a medium of learning and instruction is increasing, as well. The percentage of higher educational institutions that offered distance learning courses using asynchronous Internet-based technologies was only 22% in 1995, whereas 60% in 1997-98 academic year (Reiser, 2001). However, these institutions' approach is mostly based on the assumption that exposing learners to messages encoded in media and delivered by technology will result in learning (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).
Jonassen (1996) criticizes the fact that although the computers have limited capabilities to present information and judge learner responses, they have been given roles of teachers and experts. Besides, computers have been mostly used in situations that students are expected to memorize information and recall it, but computers can do these kinds of tasks more speedily and
2
accurately than human beings. Learners should be given responsibility for identifying and judging patterns of information, while the computer should carry out calculations, store, sort and retrieve information that does best.
There is a tendency to view a new medium as a panacea for all problems of education as in the case of instructional video (Hannafin & Peck, 1998). It was believed that there would be no need to teachers when instructional video was used. As Reiser (2001) states, there is a recurrent pattern of expectations and outcomes in the history of instructional media: the interest and the enthusiasm about the effects of the new medium on education fade in the course of time, and then an assessment reveals that the medium has had a minimal impact on education.
1.2 Statement of the Problem In
web-based
responsibility
to
learning
access,
environments,
organize,
and
learners
analyze
have
information
the
primary
(Jonassen
&
Grabinger 1990, Newmark 1989, citied in Iiyoshi, 1999, p2). These high demands cause a cognitive burden on learners. Cognitively ill-equipped learners feel "disorientation" and "cognitive overload" in these learning environments (Marchionini, 1988; Oren, 1990).
In addition, learning is inhibited due to three major constraints of the human cognitive system: limited capacity of human short-term and working memory, difficulty in retrieving relevant information from long-term memory, and ineffective or inefficient use of cognitive strategies to obtain, manipulate,
3
and restructure information (Kozma, 1992). Tools can aid the construction of knowledge by compensating these constraints.
Mayer (1992) underlines the fact that although educators expect students become
expert
learners,
educators
seldom
provide
learners
with
the
opportunities they need to construct useful learning strategies. The Web has advantage to provide learning environme nts that can be configured by the learners for their own needs and learning styles for example by using personal bookmarks, or by creating their own links to useful material (Beer, 2000).
1.3 Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to investigate what constitutes to the use of cognitive tools in web-based learning environments, how cognitive tools support learners' cognitive processes, and propose recommendations to improve the design of such tools. The study also aims to provide a theoretical framework for future research and theory development on cognitive tools and guide future practitioners in this field.
The study addressed the following specific research questions related to learners' use of cognitive tools in a web-based learning environme nt: 1. What factors do influence the use of cognitive tools? 2. How do learners use cognitive tools? 3. To what extent do cognitive tools support learning according to the perceptions of learners?
4
1.4 Significance of the Study Several research studies on web-based instruction (WBI) repeatedly focused on evaluation of the effectiveness of specific courses. However, very few of these studies developed tools to support cognitive processes of learners, or investigated the usage of these tools for learning. Despite the interest in WBI, research on the design of web-based learning environments has rarely been linked to psychological foundations. The findings of this study may add to our understanding of cognitive tool usage in web-based learning environments. Since cognitive tool is a new concept, how learners use these tools and what factors influence the usage of such tools is little understood. Hence, this study may also provide guidelines for the design, development, utilization, and evaluation of cognitive tools in WBI. The factors influencing the use of cognitive tools in web-based learning environments and dynamics of these tools should be identified that developers could consider during design process.
1.5 Definitions of Terms Hybrid course: A hybrid course is a blend of face-to-face instruction with online learning that a significant part of the course learning is online and as a result, the amount of classroom seat-time is reduced.
Web-based learning environment: Web-based learning environment is a place, community or practice, in which the attributes and resources of the World Wide Web are utilized to support learning.
5
Cognitive tools: Cognitive tools are technologies that support, and extend the cognitive
processes
of
learners
during
6
learning,
and
thinking.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to investigate how learners use cognitive tools and how cognitive tools support learners’ cognitive processes in web-based learning
environments.
In
this
chapter,
distance
education,
web-based
instruction, and cognitive tools are described briefly. Furthermore, psychological foundations of cognitive tools are explained, and lastly research studies on cognitive tools are presented.
2.1 Distance Education Distance education is planned learning in which student and instructor are separated by time and place that requires special techniques of course design, special instructional techniques, special methods of communication, and special organizational and administrative arrangements (Moore and Kearsley, 1996).
Scholars criticize the fact that media comparison studies have formed the basis of research in distance education in the form of program evaluation and descriptions of individual programs (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996). Lockee, Burton and Cross (1999) claim that the aim of the media comparison studies that finds no significant difference results is to demonstrate that distance
7
learners receive the same quality of instruction as the learners on-camps students, so confirm the investment on distance education.
2.2 Web-Based Instruction Khan (1997) defines web-based instruction as a hypermedia-based instructional program using the Web as the medium for delivering instruction to a remote audience by utilizing the attributes and resources of the World Wide Web.
According to Relan and Gilliami (1997), WBI is the application of cognitively oriented instructional strategies that can serve as a resource for a variety of information, a medium of collaboration and participating in simulated experiences, as an international platform for promoting artistic and cognitive understandings and meanings.
Web-based
instruction
offers
several
logistical,
instructional,
and
economic advantages such as advantages that allows the user to learn any time, any place, on any computer platform or operating system, at their own pace (Hannum, 2001). Other advantages of WBI for instructors or creators can be listed as ease of content update and distribution, providing the delivery of rich multimedia and collaboration. WBI has also economic advantages, because it reduces duplication of effort, requires less technical support and expensive facilities, inexpensive distribution of materials.
8
2.2.1 Factors That Influence Learning via the WWW Hill and Hannafin (1997) identify five key factors influencing open-ended learning via the Web by analysis of the literature on information systems, psychology, communication, computer science, and information science. These factors are metacognitive knowledge, perceived orientation, perceived selfefficacy,
system
knowledge
and
prior
subject
knowledge.
Metacognitive
knowledge, which is the consciousness of one's cognitive processes, affects how individuals recognize and monitor their learning needs. Perceived orientation refers to awareness of one's location within a system, the path followed, and how to return to previous locations within the system. When learners feel lost, their learning is consequently influenced. Perceives self-efficacy, which can be defined as the personal judgment of one's ability to perform a task, influences the confidence of the learners using the system. System knowledge, which is one's
prior
knowledge
of
and
experience
with
a
system's
structure
and
functioning, influences the utilization of the system effectively and efficiently. Prior subject knowledge, which refers one's knowledge and experience on the subject, influences assimilation and integration of new material.
Careijo,
Young
and
Wilhelm
(2001)
examined
psychosocial
and
environmental factors facilitating student participation in asynchronous webbased courses. The results of their study indicated that learning style, personality type, and classroom preference influenced students' attitudes toward asynchronous web-based courses.
9
2.3 Cognitive Tools In the following sections, definitions and scope of cognitive tools are discussed. Secondly, the status of cognitive tools in educational applications of computers is identified. At last, the distinction of cognitive tools from other tools is presented.
2.3.1 Definitions of Cognitive Tools The term "cognitive tools" has been defined in various ways. Jonassen and Reeves (1996), took a broad view of the term as: "cognitive tools refer to technologies, tangible or intangible, that enhance the cognitive powers of human beings during thinking, problem solving and learning" (p. 693).
According to Jonassen (1992), cognitive tools are cognitive amplification computer-based tools that facilitate generative processing of information by learners. For Mayes (1992, p.7), "a cognitive tool can be regarded as an instructional technique in so far as it involves a task, the explicit purpose of which is to lead to active and durable learning of the information manipulated or organised in some way by the task"
"Cognitive tools are both mental and computational devices that support, guide and extend the cognitive processes of learners to amplify their mental functioning and facilitate the creation of personal knowledge" (Iiyoshi, 1999, p2).
As it is cited in Jonassen and Reeves (1998), these tools are also called as cognitive technologies by Pea (1985), technologies of mind by Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) and mindtools by Jonassen (1996).
10
"Mindtools are computer-based tools and learning environments that have been adapted or developed to function as intellectual partners with the learner in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher order learning" (Jonassen, 2000, p.9)
2.3.2 Scope of Cognitive Tools As it can be inferred from the inconsistent definitions of cognitive tools, there is a lack of predetermined scope of cognitive tools. Computer-based tools (Jonassen,
1992),
instructional
techniques
(Mayes,
1992)
or
mental
and
computational devices are referred as cognitive tools. Besides, Jonassen and Reeves (1996) suggest all kinds of technologies as cognitive tools including databases,
spreadsheets,
multimedia/hypermedia collaborative
knowledge
semantic
construction
networks,
software,
construction
expert
computer-based
environments,
computer
systems, conferencing, programming
languages and finally microworlds.
2.3.4 The Status of Cognitive Tools in Educational Applications of Computers Taylor (1980, cited in Allessi & Trollip, p. 302) suggests that all educational applications of computers can be broadly classified into three main categories: "tutor, tool, and tutee". In the tutor role, the computer functions as a substitute or supplemental teacher by delivering instruction and guiding learning. As a tool, the computer can be used to carry out tasks assigned by the student. In tutee applications, the student takes control of the learning situation and becomes the 'teacher' who will issue instructions for the computer to accomplish
11
a particular task or solve a problem. As shown in figure 2.1, cognitive tool is a type of an educational application, which has a tool role.
Figure 2.1. Status of Cognitive Tools in Educational Applications of Computers
2.3.5 The Distinctions of Cognitive Tools from Other Tools It is important to make a distinction between cognitive tools and noncognitive tools. The next sections dwell upon these differences.
Mindful, Not Effortless Learning Cognitive tools are not designed to make learning easy or effortless by reducing
information
processing
like
the
false
promises
of
many
earlier
instructional technologies (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996). They are not "fingertip" tools
(Perkins,
1990,
cited
in
Jonassen,
1992)
that
are
used
naturally,
effortlessly, and effectively. Instead, learners need to think harder and more meaningful by employing deeper information processing. They are cognitive reflection and amplification tools that assist learners to construct their own meanings where they involve in mindful cognitive effort.
12
Intelligence by Learners, Not by Computers Derry and Lajoie (1993) try to categorize the philosophies regarding how computers can be used to facilitate instruction. They use an analogy describing their
imaginary
camps
as
modelers,
nonmodelers,
and
middle
camp.
The
modelers, which can be regarded as traditional intelligent tutoring systems, are based on the assumptions that students' thinking processes can be modeled, traced, and corrected in the context of problem solving using computers. On the opposite side, the nonmodelers suggest that a computer should not be used for student modeling because they believe that adequate cognitive models can't be developed, or because better or more cost-effective alternatives exist. According to nonmodelers the appropriate role for a computer system should not be a teacher or an expert, but rather a tool that extends the mind. They recommend that learners should be responsible for planning, decision-making, and selfregulation through the use of cognitive tools and assistance from teachers or peers. They rely on the learners to provide the intelligence, rather than computers. The tool that does not encourage thinking can't be classified as a cognitive tool for the nonmodelers. Salomon (1993) states that cognitive tools have the capabilities to function as intellectual partners that share the cognitive burden
of
carrying
out
tasks.
When
computers
carries
out
lower
level
computational operations, users have more resources to engage in higher-level operations such as generating hypothesis, thinking out causal links, drawing conclusions. When the cognitions become distributed in the case of an intellectual partnership, the effects of cognitive tools in terms of cognitive residue may remains after their use.
13
Knowledge Construction, Not Reproduction Cognitive
tools
represent
a
constructivist
use
of
technology.
Constructivism is concerned with the process of how we construct knowledge and meaning (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). It emphasizes the importance of the knowledge, beliefs, and skills an individual brings to the experience of learning.
Constructivists attempt to create environments where learners construct their own knowledge, rather than absorbing the transmitted world by their teachers. In constructivist learning environments, learners are actively engaged in comprehending the external world and creating their personal interpretations rather than reproducing the presented knowledge (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996).
Jonassen claims that cognitive tools are constructivist, because as shown in Figure 2.2 they make learners engage actively in creation of personal knowledge reflecting comprehension and conception of the information in a student-centered environment.
Figure 2.2 Three Dimensions of Cognitive Tools (Jonassen, 1992)
14
Oriented to Process, Not Just Performance There are differences between electronic performance support systems (EPSS) which are designed to provide learners with assistance on the job at the time it is needed and cognitive tools (Alessi and Trollip, 2001). Cognitive tools support the learning and thinking processes of learners rather than performing specific tasks or jobs. Jonassen and Reeves (1996) state that computer tools should be generalizable instead of performance orientated on a specific task. In addition, Salomon (1993) distinguishes performance-oriented tools such as FreeHand or a word processor which are designed to improve the performance of individuals from pedagogical tools that stimulate higher order thinking and contribute to make learners better and independent thinkers.
2.4 Psychological Foundations for Cognitive Tools The design of the cognitive tools developed for this research is rooted in psychological
foundations.
The
cognitive
theories
(Cognitive
Load
Theory,
Metacognition Theory, Mental Model Theory, and Information Processing Theory) that build the psychological framework of the tools, and their implications (influenced by Iiyoshi, 1999) are discussed in the following sections.
2.4.1 Cognitive Views of Learning Before cognitivism, learning is defined as the change in behavior by behaviorists. Behaviorism only focuses on observable behaviors and discounts unobservable mental activities. This view of learning assume learners as passive recipients whose repertoire of behaviors are determined by rewards and punishments
encountered
in
the
environment
(Mayer,
1992).
Cognitive
psychology arose from a reaction to behaviorism because they felt that
15
behaviorism's emphasis on the link between a stimulus and a response was not sufficient to explain all human activity (Winn and Snyder, 1996). For the cognitivists, learning is a change in person's mental structures that provide the capacity to demonstrate different behaviors (Eggen & Kauckhak, 1999).
2.4.2 Cognitive Load Theory Cognitive
load
theory
(Sweller,
van
Merrienboer,
and
Paas,
1998;
Kalyuga, Chandler, Sweller, 2001; Chandler and Sweller, 1991) is based on the assumption that a learner has a limited processing capacity and limitations of working memory poses a fundamental constraint on human performance and learning capacity. This theory proposes to give greater consideration to the role and limitations of working memory in instructional design. According to this theory, we can overcome the limitations of our cognitive system by schema construction,
chunking
information
into
meaningful
units,
and
schema
automation, performing a task with minimal conscious effort. A schema that has been learned is treated as a single entity although it may embody a vast amount of information. The benefits of schema constructions are the storage of information in long-term memory that is unlimited in capacity and a reduction of memory load. Schema automation can free up the resources of working memory for other mental activities. Despite of the fact that schemas are stored in longterm memory, the construction of schema processes takes place in working memory. The lack of schema construction and automation may place heavy demands on limited working memory may cause cognitive overload and then may inhibit learning.
16
Hypermedia systems display only one screen image at a time that makes it difficult to relate pieces of information in the system, because learners must kept relevant information in their memory (Oren, 1990). Learners may forget the task before getting to the appropriate documentation.
Implication 1.1 Support Memory Processes Computers can reduce the memory burden for the learner (Lajoie, 1993). According to Kozma (1992), cognitive tools can supplement limitation of shortterm memory by making large amounts of information immediately available for the learner's use. For example, cognitive tools can support learners' memory processes by allowing the users to take notes or to view the steps of their learning activities by keeping tracks of these steps. Cognitive tools have the potential to help learners during thinking, problem solving and learning by providing opportunities to share the cognitive load by undertaking automated and lower level operations so that resources are freed for higher order thinking skills and support memory processes; (Lajoie and Azevedo, 2000).
Implication 1.2 Facilitate Schema Construction According to Kozma (1992), cognitive tools can aid learning by •
Making it easy to retrieve relevant, previously learned information and
making
it
simultaneously
available
along
with
current
information. •
Prompting the learner to structure, integrate, and interconnect new ideas with previous ones.
•
Providing for self-testing, thus rehearsing the recall of previously learned information and increasing its retrievability.
17
Implication 1.3 Assist Schema Automation Lajoie (1993) emphasizes the importance of the automization of lower level cognitive processes so that learner can have resources available for higher order
cognitive
processes.
In
this
respect,
computers
can
support
this
automization process by carrying out lower level cognitive processes to free up resources for higher order cognitive processes. According to Kozma (1987) experts have more automatized cognitive strategies, use less capacity of their cognitive system and thus have more space available for learning.
Implication 1.4 Use Information Hiding A popular method for reducing cognitive load is information hiding, which is reducing the choices visible to the user by hiding less-used options (Oren, 1990). Pull-down menus are most often used for this method, because menus lower the number of choices for users. Bookmarks and annotations are also used for reducing cognitive load, because they allow users to save parts of mental states for later use. Information hiding is also used by many designers to reduce the complexity of an interface.
2.4.3 Metacognition Theory Metacognition is the awareness of one's own thoughts, and the ability to understand, control, monitor, and manipulate individual cognitive processes and activities (Osman & Hannafin, 1992). Metacognition is the knowledge and awareness
of
our
cognitive
processes
and
includes
planning,
reflecting,
assessing, and deliberately initiating cognitive activities (Alessi, Trollip, 2001). Lin highlights the importance of including metacognitive support in the design of learning environments, because learners don't engage in metacognitive thinking
18
of their own accord unless they are encouraged and supported. Hannafin and Osman (1992) argue that existing instructional design models don't give enough emphasis to learners' metacognitive strategies. According to these models, learners are perceived as passive participants who respond to instruction without controlling and monitoring learning activities. Embedding appropriate cognitive tools to web-based learning environments can assist learners monitor their knowledge status and cognitive processes.
Implication 2.1 Monitor Learning Processes Cognitive tools can encourage students to monitor, evaluate, and selfregulate learning processes (Derry & Lajoie, 1993). For example, Lajoie (1993) claims that the diagnostic notebook of Bio-world support metacognition by displaying the learners' previous actions, so that learners have that opportunity to check their prior plans and actions. This tool serves a metacognitive function, because it models and supports self-monitoring of problem-solving performance in order to assist learners internalize expert-level metacognitive processes. According to Kozma (1987), cognitive tools can provide learners to internalize the processes they perform by overtly displaying these processes.
Implication 2.2 Provide Opportunities for Learning Strategies Learning strategies are self-initiated activities by which learning is achieved such as reading aloud, copying notes, consulting peers, asking to the instructor for clarification (Siva & Tung, 2001). Appropriate learning strategies are effective in their context of use. For example, strategies such as note taking and highlighting key ideas in studying by reading texts are effective because they encourage the learners to engage in high degree of mental processes
19
(Najar, 1998). Alessi and Trollip (2001) emphasize that providing opportunities such as enabling learners to take notes in an on-line notebook will be beneficial although not all users may prefer to take notes.
2.4.4 Mental Model Theory Mental model theory has the goal to model and make clear human understanding of objects and phenomena during learning and other activities (Jih & Reeves, 1992). Johnson-Laird (1983) claims that "…human beings understand the world by constructing working models of it in their minds" (p. 10). According to this theory, users utilize their current mental models in order to understand and predict what the system contains, how it works, how comp onents are related, and how the system works in its way (Jih & Reeves, 1992; Sifaqui, 1999). Thus, using a system successfully is determined by how well the users' mental model represents the system (Sifaqui, 1999).
However, mental models
of users often vary from the conceptual model promoted by the designers because of varying prior knowledge, individual abilities, and different beliefs about the purpose and the functions of the system (Jonassen & Henning, 1999).
“The difficulty of understanding the structure and the functions of computer programs is especially acute when learners are given the freedom to explore hypertext materials in which the possibility of disorientation is strong” (Jih & Reeves, 1999, p.39). Disorientation has been mentioned by many researchers (Marchionini, 1988; Nielsen, 1990; Gamberini and Bussolon, 2001) as a navigational problem for hyperspace users. Users often get lost in hypermedia while they are navigating freely. Learners may not know where they are, remember the path they followed, or have difficulty in finding the
20
information they need. The causes of disorientation are stated as the quantity of information that a user has access and medium's lack of physical feedback about quantity or scope. Hypermedia systems generally imp ose cognitive load in the form of navigation (Oren, 1990).
Implication
3.1
Facilitate
the
Understanding
of
the
Learning
System Since the quality of interaction within interactive learning systems depends upon learners' construction of mental models of the systems, they are less likely to get disoriented and they are more likely to learn. Thus, it is very important to facilitate learners' conceptual understanding the structure and the functions of the learning system, because learners will need to use the system for supporting their learning (Jih & Reeves, 1992). Therefore, orientation sessions, manual or help can used to fill the discrepancy between the mental model of the user and the conceptual model of the system.
Implication 3.2 Aid Navigation Providing some navigational aids can decrease the phenomena of getting lost in hypermedia (Marchionini, 1988; Gamberini and Bussolon, 2001). Tools can allow the users to create hot lists by personal bookmarks, to remember their movements by navigation history, to grasp the position within the hypermedia by "you are here" type indications, and to visualize the structure of site by sitemap. Alessi and Trollip (2001) recommend designers provide site maps or some visuals devices to assist user orientation.
21
Implication 3.3 Guide Navigation The problem of disorientation can diminish as users gain experience with the medium (Marchionini, 1988; Nielsen, 1990;). Guided tours or orientation sessions can be used to introduce new users to how to use the site efficiently and effectively. Park and Hannafin (1993) emphasize that learners get confused and disoriented when procedures are complex, insufficient, or inconsistent. For that reasons, they recommend to provide clearly defined procedures for navigating within the interactive system and accessing on-line support.
Implication 3.4 Provide Consistent Navigation According to Hannum (2001), learners can easily become confused, lost and frustrated when inconsistent screen designs and navigation are used. Lynch and Hurton (1998) suggest web designers to build their page and site designs on consistent patterns to make navigation easy. "A consistent approach to layout and navigation allows readers to adapt quickly to your design and predict with confidence the location of informa tion and navigation controls across the pages of your site. " (Lynch and Hurton, 1998, p. 56)
2.4.5 Information Processing Theory Information
processing
theory
emphasizes
how
people
attend
to
environmental events, encode information to be learned, relate it to knowledge in memory, store new knowledge in memory and retrieve it as needed. (Shuell, 1986; cited in Schunk, 2000, p. 119). According to Mayer (1996), humans are active participants in the learning process who select and attend to the environment, transform and rehearse information, relate new information to existing knowledge, and organize information.
22
Figure 2.3. Information Processing Model
The information processing model (Figure 2.3) identifies three memory stores called sensory register, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Like computers, human beings take information from the environment into buffers, to process and to store it in memory. Information processing typically begins with stimulus input (e. g. visual, auditory). Environmental stimuli in their primitive form are first handled by a sensory information store called sensory register until they can be attended and further processed. Information that is not selectively attended
and
recognized
decays
or
disappears
from
the
system.
This
unconscious process, selective perception, is influence by individual factors such as prior knowledge, expectancies and presentation factors such as use of cues, organization of information (Hannafin and Reiber, 1989). The sensory register transfers information to short-term memory, which is also called as working memory. Short-term memory is the information store where information is held temporarily as the person consciously works with it. It is limited in capacity and duration. Miller (1956) proposed that without rehearsal working memory can hold about 7 plus or minus 2 units of information for about 10 to 20 seconds for
23
adults (cited in Schunk, 2000). Information in short-term memory may be disregarded, retained by repetition which is called rehearsal, or transferred to the next memory store by building relationships and connections with existing knowledge structures. The next memory store is long-term memory where our permanent information store is held. According to information processing theory learning occurs when the information is transferred from short-term memory to long-term memory.
The implications of information processing theory are based on Iiyoshi and Hannafin’s (1998) cognitive model of knowledge construction. In this model, there are five different types of tools as information seeking tools, information presentation tools, knowledge organization tools, knowledge integration tools, and knowledge generation tools that each of the tool function supports a corresponding cognitive process.
Sensory Memory
Seeking
Information Seeking Tools
Short-Term Memory
Selecting
Information Presentation Tools
Organizing
Knowledge Organization Tools
Long-Term Memory
Integrating
Knowledge Integration Tools
Generating
Knowledge Generation Tools
Figure 2.4 Cognitive Model of Knowledge Construction (Iiyoshi & Hannafin, 1998)
24
Implication 4.1 Support Information Seeking When learners try to access information from a hypermedia system, they probably encounter some problems such as having difficulty finding specific information, getting lost, or feeling disoriented (Leader & Klein, 1996). In this respect, cognitive tools can support learners’ information seeking processes as they attempt to identify and locate relevant information and they can assist learners to retrieve new and existing knowledge (Iiyoshi & Hannafin, 1998).
Implication 4.2 Help Information Selection Learners
experience
some
difficulties
during
selecting
relevant
information in sensory memory and combining that information to short-term memory. These difficulties are stated by Bishop and Cates (2001) as having trouble
directing
attention
to
the
instructional
message,
isolating
and
disambiguating relevant information contained in the instructional message and activating learner's existing schema by the instructional message. Accordingly, cognitive tools can help learners direct attention, isolate information, and tie into previous knowledge by appealing to learner's memories and evoking existing schema (Bishop & Cates, 2001). Selection aids such activities as underlining, highlighting or repetitive practice can be employed in this respect (McKeague & Di Vesta, 1996).
Implication 4.3 Assist Knowledge Organization Knowledge organization is the process of establishing relationships with the selected information in short-term memory into a coherent whole (Iiyoshi, 1999). According to Schunk, when a material is organized by classifying and grouping information into organized chunks, it is easier to learn, and recall this
25
kind of material. Cognitive tools can assist learners to simplify the organization processes and eliminate unnecessary task complexity (Iiyoshi, 1999).
Implication 4.4 Aid Knowledge Integration Knowledge integration is the process of connecting the new organized information
to
prior
knowledge
(Iiyoshi,
1999).
When
new
information
is
associated with stored knowledge, it is more likely to be retained in long-term memory. Cognitive tools can aid learners in connecting new information with existing knowledge.
Implication 4.5 Facilitate Knowledge Generation The last phase of Information Processing Theory is knowledge generation. According to Jonassen and Reeves (1996) cognitive tools should represent knowledge as how someone depicts content or personal knowledge and empower learners to design their own representations of knowledge rather than absorbing representations preconceived by others. Cognitive tools can facilitate the generation of knowledge by providing opportunities for learners to represent their own knowledge flexibly and meaningfully (Iiyoshi & Hannafin, 1998).
2.5 Research Studies on Cognitive Tools Iiyoshi and Hannafin (1998) investigate patterns and effects of cognitive tools
usage
during
engagement
with
an
open-ended hypermedia learning
environment. They use sixteen cognitive tools embedded in a hypermedia system and analyze the patterns and corresponding cognitive learning processes of tool usage. They classify the cognitive tools as information seeking tools,
26
information
presentation
tools,
knowledge
organization
tools,
knowledge
integration tools, and knowledge generation tools.
At the end of the study, they find four factors affected learner’s selection and use of cognitive tools. These factors are general prior knowledge, taskrelated prior knowledge, task complexity, and tool familiarity.
The findings of their study also suggested that the common phases of multiple tool use strategies are identification, exploration, and optimization. In the first phase, identification, the learners try to discover how to use the tools, and how each tool can help them in accomplishing tasks During the second phase, exploration, learners start to recognize effective and efficient use of multiple tools. In the last phase, optimization, the learners attempted to imp rove the way they use multiple tools.
Oliver and Hannafin (2000), investigate middle schools students' use of computer tools to manage and manipulate Internet-based hypermedia resources during authentic scientific inquiry. Their findings neither prove that tool use supported higher order thinking nor refute that possibility. When tools are used alone, they are insufficient to help students in intended ways. Evidences suggest that students more often use tools supporting low-level information gathering. They explain tool use may be ineffective by the factors such as lack of facility with
tool
features
and
tool
strategies,
limited
unsophisticated beliefs about learning and strategy.
27
domain
knowledge,
and
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
This chapter presents the overall design of the study, participants, the case, materials, data collection instruments, data collection techniques and sources, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, and limitations of the study.
3.1 Overall Design of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate how learners used the cognitive tools and to what extent these tools supported their learning in a webbased learning environment. The present study was developed as a qualitative study. Qualitative studies provide a holistic and an in-dept picture of a particular individual, situation, or case (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1996). They focus on phenomena embedded in its context from the participants' perspective in their natural settings, without manipulating the environment intentionally (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Therefore, the characteristics of the study lead to employ qualitative research method, because the main purpose of the investigation was to get a complete and an in-depth understanding of learners' use of cognitive tools in their context from their views.
28
Qualitative researchers collect data in the form of words or pictures rather than numbers, because they aim to analyze data with all of their richness (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). Unlike the positivist approach, whic h tries to test hypothesis generated from theory, or prior research, qualitative research let researchers discover reality without fitting it into a preconceived theory (Best and Kahn, 1998). The emphasis is more on process, rather than outcomes or products, so qualitative researchers are likely to concern with how people negotiate meaning, what the natural history of the activity under study is, how attitudes are translated into daily interactions, and the like (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998).
Moreover, the research questions may evolve in the course of time in
qualitative studies, because the researcher may not want to be bias for his or her study by focusing the inquiry too narrowly (Savenye and Robinson, 1996).
This is a case study, because the focus was upon a section of a class. A case study is a detailed and concentrated investigation of just one setting, one individual, or one particular event (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). According to Yin (1994), a case study is an empirical inquiry that examines a contemp orary phenomenon
within
its
real-life
context,
when
the
boundaries
between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and when the researcher has little control over events. According to Merriam (1998), a case is an integrated bounded system such as a thing, a single entity, or a unit and a qualitative case study is an intensive, holistic description and analysis of this bounded system.
According to Savenye and Robinson (1996), educational technologists should ask new questions in new ways by expanding the views of what should be investigated
and
how.
Naturalistic
inquires
29
have
the
potential
to
obtain
empirically validated insights about content and strategies inherent in learners' constructions while using software, because according to qualitative paradigm there are multiple realities that are individually constructed (Neuman, 1989). In addition, for the naturalists reality can't be separated into independent parts that can be studies in isolation, instead it must be studied in the light of the particular contexts in which it inheres.
Educational technologists need to know how
learners use new technologies and how environmental factors affect the use of these technologies, because it is argued that learning environments can effect the utilization of instructional technologies.
As the first step of the study, the researcher conducted a comprehensive literature review on such topics as distance education, web-based instruction, and cognitive tools, which were presented in chapter 2. The literature review made it possible for the researcher to identify the problems related to learning in web-based learning environments, and to construct implications for the web-site through the cognitive theories investigated. Afterwards, the researcher designed and developed the course management system of the course including the cognitive tools, because the researcher found no existing cognitive tools developed for web-based learning environments.
The participants of this present study included 31 undergraduate students from various departments of the Middle East Technical University who attended the "Computer Networks and Communication" course.
In the next step of the study, in order to find out their learning strategies and opinions on the necessity of the cognitive tools before they were used,
30
students
were
given
surveys.
Subsequently,
an
orientation
session
was
administered to familiarize learners with the web-site and the cognitive tools in the first class of the course. Later, group interviews with students were held so as to identify (1) learners' intentions in using the cognitive tool, (2) factors that influenced students while using the tools, and (3) how these tools supported their learning in the web-based learning environment. Finally, the questionnaires were administered to assess to what extent the cognitive tools supported students' learning.
The data collected through group interviews were subject to a content analysis. The data were labelled through using descriptive codes to simplify the thickness
and
complexity
of
the
data.
The
codes
were
collected
under
manageable themes. The themes that were formed by the researcher helped to identify the factors influenced the use of cognitive tools, learners’ purposes for using these tools, and the effect of cognitive tool usage.
3.2 Participants The participants were 31 undergraduate students, 30 males and 1 female, who attended the "Computer Networks and Communication" course from various departments of Middle East Technical University. The cumulative GPA of students was in the range of 1.69-3.28 with a mean of 2.31. Of 31 students, 21 were in fourth grade, 10 were in third grade and 1 was in second grade.
In this study purposeful sampling approach was used for the interviewing. According to Patton (1990), qualitative inquiries commonly focus in-depth on small samples to select information-rich cases purposefully. Information-rich cases enable the researcher to collect more information about the issues under
31
investigation. In purposeful sampling, researchers use personal judgment in selecting the sample depending on previous knowledge about the participants and on the specific purposes of the study.
From the purposeful sampling approaches, stratified purposeful sampling technique was employed. This sampling technique, which is especially employed to illustrate characteristics of particular subgroups of interest (Patton, 1990), was appropriate for this study since there were variations among the users in terms of their cognitive tool utilization. In order to have diversity among students to be interviewed, the researcher used the computer logs to obtain information about the frequencies of learners' tool utilization. The researcher identified three groups of students as above average, average, and below average cognitive tool users. After that, the group interviews were conducted with the students from the same groups, which were formed according to the criteria mentioned above.
3.3 The Case “Computer Networks and Communication” course, which was offered as an elective course, had two sections in the spring semester of 2001-2002 academic year of Middle East Technical University (METU). The case of the study was the second section of course. It was offered to all students that have participated
IS
100
(“Introduction
To
Information
Technologies
And
Applications”), which is the computer literacy course of METU. IS 100 was a prerequisite for this course, because it should be ensured that the students had basic computer skills and knowledge. Moreover, the instructor of the elective
32
course paid attention to select students from non-technical faculties especially Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Faculty of Education.
According to General Catalog 2001-2003 of METU, the description of CEIT 314 “Computer Networks and Communications” is provided as: This course introduces the underlying concepts and principles of computer networks. It presents the different components of a network and how these components fit together. The course emphasizes the design and implementation of network software that transforms raw hardware into a richly functional communication system. Real networks (such as the Internet, ATM, Ethernet, Token Ring) are used as examples to reinforce the concepts and demonstrate various protocols. The objectives of IS 100 are to introduce all students of METU the basic information technology concepts and applications in their preparatory school or freshman year, to prepare them to use these skills during their undergraduate studies in their respective disciplines, as well as in their future professional lives. The catalog information about the course is “Introduction to computers, computer hardware and software, word processors, spreadsheets, computer networks and Internet browsers. The material is taught totally in the laboratory”
The course was offered in a hybrid format, which was a blend of face-toface instruction with online learning. A significant part of the course learning was online and as a result, the amount of classroom seat-time was reduced.
3.4 Materials The web-site of "Computer Networks and Communication" course was used as the web-based learning environment of the study. The instructor of the course was responsible for the instructional design, content creation and all
33
activities for the course whereas the investigator of this study designed and developed the user interface and the system of the web-site including the cognitive
tools.
The
web-site was developed by using emerging Internet
technologies such as Active Server Pages (ASP), Microsoft SQL Server 7.0, Dynamic HyperText Markup Language (DHTML), and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
The web-site of the course included components such as Course Content, Syllabus, Announcements, Assignments, and Feedback.
The cognitive tools, embedded in the web-site of "Computer Networks and Communication" course, were Highlight, Bookmark, Notebook, Pagenote, Search, Glossary, History, Sitemap and Note to Remember.
3.4.1 Highlight By using Highlight, users can mark passages of text just as they might use a highlighter pen to mark paper books. When learners revisit the same page, they can see the passages highlighted with yellow background. Students highlight a passage by firstly selecting the text and then associating it with a keyword. The keywords that have been previously associated are saved and listed in a drop-down menu. When the keyword is not in the drop-down menu, users may add a new keyword. In case learners don't want to associate the passage with a keyword, they will select the reserved keyword "--nothing--" from the menu.
34
Users may open the highlighted passages from the contents or the components of the web-site. Content titles and page numbers, as well as the associated keywords of the passages that have been previously highlighted are saved by the system and listed in drop-down menus. Thus, learners have the chance to see the highlighted passages by selecting the appropriate concept title, page number and associated keyword from the drop-down menu. Learners also have the chance to visit the page by clicking the title of the content.
Figure 3.1 Sample Screen of a Highlighted Passage
Users can change a highlighted passage to its normal form. The highlighted items of the current page are listed as shown in figure 3.2, and learners can select which highlighted items to be erased from this list.
35
Figure 3.2 Sample Screen for Deleting Highlighted Items
3.4.2 Bookmark The learner can put a mark on a particular page inside or outside of the web-site of the course, then return to that location from anywhere of the website. The internal or external links that have been previously added to the Bookmark are listed as shown in figure 3.3. Then, the user can access any bookmarked page simply by clicking on the list. The user has also the chance to delete a link from the Bookmark.
36
Figure 3.3 Sample Screen of Bookmark
3.4.3 Notebook By using Notebook, learners can take general notes and then read them anywhere in the web-site. All notes have a title and content field that are saved by the system. The note sheets of the Notebook are listed as shown in figure3.4. The user can see the content of any note simply by clicking the title of this note. Users also have the chance to edit or delete a note in the Notebook.
37
Figure 3.4 Sample Screen of Notebook
3.4.5 Pagenote Learners can attach a note to a particular page, then read this note while exploring that page. Unlike NoteBook which allows users to take general notes that can be read anywhere in the web-site, PageNote let users add a note only to the current page. Users can also edit or delete the note.
38
Figure 3.5 Sample Screen of a Content that a Pagenote is Added
3.4.6 Search The learners can find information that contains a specific word or a phrase either of the followings: course contents, content titles, highlighted passages of text, the keywords that are associated with highlighted text, bookmark titles, notebook titles, notebook contents, pagenotes or all of the above.
39
Figure 3.6 Sample Screen of Search
3.4.7 Glossary Glossary let learners find the definitions of the terms. By clicking an initial letter, all terms which starts with the selected letter are displayed as shown in figure 3.7.
40
Figure 3.7 Sample Screen of Glossary
3.4.8 History History displays the pages visited, the activities done with the tools or both in order with the time period selected. The time period options are “today”, “yesterday”, and “this week”. By clicking the title of the page, the learners can return to the selected page.
41
Figure 3.8 Sample Screen of History
3.4.9 Sitemap By using Sitemap, learners have the chance to see the tree structure of the web-site and access all the pages of the web-site. In order to see the hierarchy of the web-site, users may click on the plus signs or the minus signs next to the content titles to display or hide sub-contents.
42
Figure 3.9 Sample Screen of Sitemap
3.4.10 Note to Remember Learners can post a note to the main page to remind themselves anything when they enter the web-site. Learners also have the chance to edit or delete the note situated in the main page.
43
Figure 3.10 Sample Screen of the Main Page that Note to Remember is Added
3.5 Data Collection Instruments Three instruments were used to collect data: (1) Survey of Learning Aids and Opinions on the Necessity of Cognitive Tools, (2) Perceptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire, and (3) Interview Schedule.
Survey of Learning Aids and Opinions on the Necessity of Cognitive Tools The Survey of Learning Aids and Opinions on the Necessity of Cognitive Tools was developed by the researcher. It consists of 2 sections. The first section aimed
to
gather
information
about
how
often
students
employ
learning
strategies such as highlighting, and bookmarking. In the items of the first
44
section, a 5-point scale type format that ranges from "least frequently" to "most frequently" was used.
The second section of the survey aimed to get students' opinions on the necessity of cognitive tools. In the items of the second section, a 5-point scale type format that ranges from "least necessary" to "most necessary" was used.
The survey was submitted for criticism for two researchers who had experience in instrument construction to assure its accuracy and validity. The instrument was also pilot-tested with 6 graduate students. The aim of this piloting process was to evaluate the clarity of the statements, and time required to complete the survey. The researcher asked the subjects of piloting group to mark
unclear
statements
and
told
about
their
interpretations.
Essential
modifications were made before conducting the survey to the participants according to the feedbacks.
Perceptions on the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire This questionnaire took part at the end of the Course Feedback Form, which was developed by the instructor of the course. Perceptions on the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire was developed by the researcher and the purpose was to find out learners' perceptions on to what extent individual cognitive tools supported their learning. A subject expert examined the test items to assure their accuracy and validity. This questionnaire consisted of 9 items in 5-point Likert scaling format ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".
45
Interview Guide A semi-structured interview guide was used in order to collect in-depth information from the learners on their perceptions of the cognitive tools. This guide was prepared in Turkish by the researcher based on the research questions of the study and related theoretical literature.
The first question of the interview guide had the goal of finding out the most and the least frequently used cognitive tools. According to the answers of the interviewees, the researcher decided to ask either the first or the second section of the guide. It is important to state that both the first and the second sections of a specific question dwell upon a particular cognitive tool.
The first section of the interview guide is about the most frequently used cognitive tools and has goals of finding out learners’ purposes on using the tools, the benefits obtained by the students in using the tools, factors influencing these tools’ usage, problems faced during the use of the tools, and learners’ suggestions on increasing the effectiveness of the cognitive tools.
The second section of the interview guide is about the least frequently used cognitive tools and the questions of this section are different from the questions asked in the first section. The goals of this section are to determine factors influencing these tools’ usage, learners’ perceptions on the usefulness of the tools, and suggestions on increasing the effectiveness of the cognitive tools.
46
The questions of the third section of the interview guide cover all the cognitive tools. The goals of these questions are to find out factors influencing the use of cognitive tools as a whole, learners’ perceptions of the usefulness of cognitive tools in terms of their support on learning and thinking, how the learners use multiple tools for the same purpose, suggestions on increasing the effectiveness of the tools, and the need of any other cognitive tool apart from the present tools.
Before piloting the guide, the researcher asked four colleagues to check the questions in terms of clarity. The questions which were found to be unclear, ambiguous, and unnecessary were revised or omitted. Afterwards, the interview guide was piloted by the first group of the interviewees in order to see which questions worked, and which needed modification, and accordingly gave the final shape. As a result, some questions were excluded, some of them were modified, and new prompts were added, and necessary changes were made.
3.6 Data Collection Techniques and Data Sources Interviewing was used as a data collection technique in this study. The purpose of interviewing was to identify the perspective of the person being interviewed and to find out the things that we can' directly observe such as feelings, thoughts, intentions (Patton, 1990). In the study the general interview guide approach was used. In this approach, the researcher uses an interview guide to make sure that all the issues to be explored are covered, besides the inquirer decides the sequence and wording of questions (Patton, 1990). The open-ended questions helped the interviewees express themselves without any direction from the interviewer. This is an important step in collecting valid data.
47
The strengths of this approach are as: The outline increases the comprehensiveness of the data and makes data collection somewhat systematic for each respondent. Logical gaps in data can be anticipated and closed. Interviews remain fairly conversational and situational. (Patton, 1990, p. 288) The weaknesses of this approach are as: Important and salient topics may be inadvertently omitted. Interview flexibility in sequencing and wording questions can result in substantially different responses from different perspectives, thus reducing the comparability of responses. (Patton, 1990, p. 288) Specifically, group interviews were conducted in this study, because number of participants can be increased significantly through group interviews and participants can make additional comments beyond their own original responses when they hear other's responses (Patton, 1990).
The web based learning environment log system recorded each and every time-stamped records of students’ actions within the course site. This log system provided a wealth of data on the activities that occurred in the learning environment without intruding on the processes themselves. For all the actions within the web-site, the following data were recorded: name of the student, concept number, page number, time, action name (e.g. add to bookmark), and the parameters for the action (e.g. the title of the bookmark).
3.7 Data Collection Procedures Research procedures included 5 activities: (1) administration of Survey of Learning Aids and Opinions on the Necessity of Cognitive Tools; (2) orientation of learners to the cognitive tools and web-site; (3) learners use of the cognitive tools; (4) group interviews; and (5) administration of Perceptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire.
48
In the first class of the course, the Survey of Learning Aids and Opinions on the Necessity of Cognitive Tools was administered before the introduction of the cognitive tools. This ensures that students have not seen the cognitive tools before completing this survey.
A 15-minute orientation session was given to familiarize learners with the web-site and the cognitive tools in the first class of the course. The class was shown a brief overview of the web-site and how to use the cognitive tools embedded in the web-site. Next, the instructor of the course gave the Internet address of the web-site. Learners chose the user name and the password that they would use to log-in the web-course.
Learners used the cognitive tools for a whole semester. When students successfully enter the web-site of the course by using their user names and passwords, their actions within the web-site were recorded by a web based learning environment log system that was developed by the researcher.
Students were interviewed in groups of either 4 or 5. 5 interviews were conducted with students including a pilot-test. It took 45 to 75 minutes for the researcher to conduct an n i terview. Before the interviews, the researcher told the interviewees about the purpose of the interview, where the data would be used, confidentially, and time needed. Interview sessions were recorded with the permission of participants. Because of the reason that the native language of the interviewees is Turkish the questions were prepared in Turkish and the
49
interviews were carried out in Turkish. These two implementations enable the researcher to eliminate losing information because of language problem
Before the final examination of course, the Perceptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire was administered to the students.
3.8 Data Analysis Procedures Qualitative data analysis is the process of systematically searching and arranging the data collected by the researcher to increase understanding of them and to enable the investigator to present the discovered to others. This process involves working with data, organizing them, breaking data into manageable units, synthesizing them, searching for patterns, discovering important things, and deciding what to present (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998).
According to Patton (1990), the challenge is to make sense of massive amounts of qualitative data and represent the data and communicate what the data reveal given the purpose of the study.
There are no absolute rules in the process of analyzing qualitative data, but this process demands judgment, creativity, and analytical intellect and style of the analyst. The interpretation of qualitative analysis also depends on the researcher's background, so the readers of qualitative research should have access to descriptive information about the researcher's interpretations to comprehend how the researcher reached the conclusions (Patton, 1990). In this study the data were subjected to content analysis. The data were labelled by descriptive codes in order to simplify the complexity of the data into
50
manageable units. Afterwards, the patterns were identified based on the labels, and collected under major categories. The major topics and themes helped to identify the concepts and main ideas.
The
data
analysis
steps
include
the
following
steps:
Firstly,
the
investigator transcribed the interview notes word by word from the tapes that were recorded during the interviews by using Microsoft Word. Then, the researcher set the right margin as 4 inches in order to leave sufficient space for writing notes and print the interview notes. Next, the printed data were read twice in order to get the whole picture of the opinions of interviewees. Afterwards, meaningful data units were identified and appropriate labels about the data units were written in the right margin by the researcher. The labelling was carried out in Turkish. After that, main categories and sub-categories were generated. Data were indexed by group number (Gx), page number (Px), and interviewee number (Ix) in order to find the related data easier in the writing the results chapter. For example G1-P2-I3 represents group 1, page 2, and interviewee 3. Lastly, the researcher refined and reorganized the categories and also looked for relationship and meaning among and within categories.
1 DERS 1.1 DERSIN DÜZEYI 1.1.1 tüm konularin önemli olmasi, konularin tanim agirlikli ol. 1.1.2 dersin tanima dayali olup isaretlenecek çok yerin olmasi 1.1.3 içerigin çok yogun olmasi 1.1.4 1.1.5
konularin hepsinin önemli olup, ayri önemli bir s. olmamasi dersin kisaltmalar üzerine kurulmus olmasi
Figure 3.11 An Example from the Analysis of Data
51
G2-P5-I5 G2-P1-I1, G3-P1-I4 G5-P1-I2, G1-P5-I4, G1-P5I1, G5-P2-I3, G5-P1-I3 G2-P5-I3 G5-P1-I1
In the analysis of the data Microsoft Word Processor was used. For the three research questions, three word documents were opened. Numbered lists with two columns were prepared as shown in figure 11. In the first column the themes and codes were organized and written. The second column refers to the place of the codes in the raw data. For each theme a separate numbered list was created.
3.9 Limitations of the Study This study can be generalized only to the extent that similar materials and subject domains are used, since this is a small-scale case study.
In this study the interviews were carried only with the students. The result of this study is limited with the perceptions of the students.
Validity and reliability of this study will be limited to the honesty of the participant’ responses to the instruments used in this study.
Finally, another limitation is related with the methodology of the study. Interviews and the instruments are the source of the data in this study. Lack of diversity, problems of honesty, and time constraints of the students may be limitations for the study.
52
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings of the study concerning each research problem stated formerly.
4.1 Factors That Influenced the Use of The Cognitive Tools The findings indicate that the factors that influenced the learners' use of cognitive tools in web-based learning environments fall into four categories: course, learners, tools, and learning environment.
Figure 4.1 Factors Influencing the Use of Cognitive Tools
53
Course The data in this study revealed that there were two sub-categories related to the course. These are the level and the evaluation criteria of the course. In this section, how level of the course and the evaluation criteria used in the course affected students' tool use will be discussed.
Level of the course. Level of the course mainly influenced the way the users selected and used the cognitive tools. CEIT314 was an introductory-level course, which was based on fundamental concepts and definitions. Some students emphasized that the content of the course was more than enough, and at the same time each aspect of the content was very important. Besides, only essential ones were mentioned in the web-site. These are the main factors mentioned to affect learners' use of tools. For example, an interviewee said that, "there are lots of definitions and lots of things to highlight". Another interviewee agreed with his friend's idea that if he had begun to use the Highlight tool, there would have been many passages to highlight. Knowing what the abbreviations represent was very important for learners in this introductory-level course. One student remarked that: For example if you don't know what is IP, you may be confused. When you say IP is Internet Protocol, many things get clear in your mind. For this reason, learning the meaning of an abbreviation in Glossary make things easy to understand.
Evaluation criteria of the course. The fact that the st udents were reinforced to use the web site frequently resulted in students’ perceiving the site as a matter highly related with the grades that they would achieve.
54
Some of the students had a prejudice that the time that they spent on the web-site was included to the evaluation criteria of the course, and for some, the frequency of tool usage was also another criteria. On the other hand, there were no such formal criteria. One of the students said, "It was not something beneficial for us to be informed that the instructor knew how much time we spent on the web site and even which pages we visited since we got anxious and stressful.”
Learners Learning Strategies. Data collected from the survey (see table 4.1) and the interviews revealed that learning strategies considerably influenced the use of the tools. For example, students who had the strategy of highlighting text during their studies preferred to use the Highlight tool. The following conversation provided evidence to the mentioned factor: Investigator: Which factors did affect the use of Highlight frequently? Student: A habit. I also highlight important text when I read a book. It is the same thing here. Table 4.1 Students' Learning Strategies Learning Strategy
mean
Using index
3.54
Underlining
3.21
Taking notes on materials
3.11
Taking notes on notebooks
3.11
Highlighting
2.71
Using glossary
2.71
Using post it as a reminder
2.64
Bookmarking
2.46
55
In contrast, students, who are not used to highlighting or underlining text while studying, didn't prefer to use Highlight tool (e.g., "I rarely underline text during reading books. I don't have such a habit. It results in concentration problems for me.").
Prior Knowledge. Learners who didn’t have enough prior knowledge on the subject tended to use Glossary and Search tools in order to access to the necessary information. One student reported that he used Glossary tool to look at the meanings of some abbreviations and terms that he didn't know. Another learner who stated that he had no prior knowledge on the subject used the Search tool to find out the related pages of a term in the assignment.
Preferences to Classical Methods. Some students asserted that they were used to using only the classical methods for studying. One student said that he preferred taking notes in his notebook to taking notes by using the tools provided in the web site. (e.g., "If I need to take some notes, I prefer to use my own notebook since I feel it will be easier for me to study those notes later without using any computers.")
Limited Capacity of Memory. The data obtained from the interviews indicated that learners' limited capacity of memory was a factor that influenced the use of the cognitive tools. According to this factor, a learner who couldn't hold the long Internet address of a useful web-site in his memory used the Bookmark tool in order to revisit the web-site later. Some learners who couldn't remember their last visited page or what they had done preferred to use the History tool. Some
56
used Bookmark tool to reach the lastly studied content. The replies given below by the students supported this fact briefly: Investigator: What is the purpose of your using History? Student1: I use it to remember where I left. Student2: I use it to look what I had done. I use Bookmark to see where I last study instead. Time Constraints. Students' time constraints affected the use of cognitive tools indirectly. Some students reported that they faced difficulties to find enough time for the CEIT 314 course because of the heavy load coming with the other courses. Some interviewees insisted on the idea that they could hardly arrange themselves to complete the assignments and readings given in any specific week and could not devote enough time to visit the web site frequently. For example, such conversation took place between the investigator and a student: Student: I have never read anywhere twice so far. Perhaps I read the passages that I didn't understand twice, but this is different… Investigator: Why haven't you read twice? Student: Because of time.
Tools Lack of Orientation. One of the reasons for unintended utilization of cognitive tools was the lack of orientation towards the use of tools. Users of the system notified that they were not given enough information about how the tools were used, what the functions of the tools were and what the benefits of using the tools were. For example, in the interviews some students directed questions to the researcher related with the features and purposes of the tools, and even about the procedures for using the tools. Moreover, most of the learners reported that they had learnt how to use the tools by applying trial and error method. A student said, "I realized the Search tool today. I used it for testing… I
57
checked whether I could find what I looked for when I use it or not". Lack of orientation can easily be observed when the following dialogue is considered: Student: An idea: The History tool may have a different function. Instead of recording everything, it can only record your actions on Highlight or Notebook, or etc. Investigator: But, it has this function. Haven't you seen the option of Show Only Tool Actions? Student: Ok! I remember. Yes, it existed there, but I haven't used it.
Usability. Usability of the cognitive tools was also n i fluential on the usage of these tools. Some students stated that the use of cognitive tools were not practical for them (e.g., "People always use the tools which seems easy to use. These tools are not practical for me. It is more easy for me to read my own notes that I had written in my notebook."). Especially, for the Highlight tool, many users complaint about the abundance of number of steps for highlighting a passage. One interviewee noted: In my opinion, you should firstly select the text. Then when you clicked the right button of the mouse or clicked the Highlight button, it should have highlighted the passage. But you have to enter a keyword and then submit it, and it went like that. I don't prefer this.
Learning Environment Nature. Some problems caused by the nature of the learning environment affected the selection and the use of the cognitive tools. The interviewees stated these problems as: (1) their eyes got tired when they looked at the screen for a long period of time (e.g., " It gives harm to my eyes. My eyes get wet when I am reading the content. I can't read for long durations."), (2) unlikelyness of the students to sit in front of a computer for a long time (e.g., "I can't sit in front of the computer for hours"), (3) the slow speed of the Internet connections (e.g., "Especially, the Internet connection speed is very slow when I connect from home"), (4) frequent unexpected termination of the Internet connections (e.g.,
58
"… The Internet connections really annoy me. I try to reconnect to Internet continuously "), and (5) the difficulties that the students accommodating in university campus faced to find computers to study (e.g., "… I am living in a dormitory. It is not easy for me to find a computer… Waiting in the queue for hours to study seems a waste of time for me when I consider my other tasks related with my other courses.").
Cost. The cost of connecting to the Internet is one of the major factors that influenced the use of cognitive tools in the web-course. Some students who connected to the Internet from home tried to disconnect from the Internet as soon as possible and studied the course staying offline. Thus, they couldn't use the cognitive tools, which were supposedly used with an online connection. A learner said, "You have to consider the cost. It won't be appropriate to connect to the Internet for hours with the economic circumstances that a student lives in is considered". Another student admitted that: After I read the contents once, I get offline and turn back to the contents that are worthwhile. Nevertheless, I can't use the Bookmark tool since I am offline. For this reason, I access the pages from Table of Contents. I don't use the Highlight tool. Instead, I take notes whenever I need to use the Highlight tool."
Reliability. The learners, who are sensitive in terms of their personal information being observed (even by the instructor) on the web-site and at the same time others who think that the information they enter to the system with the aid of the cognitive tools may disappear, prefer not to use the tools. An interviewee stated, "because of the reason that I am paranoiac on the security of web, I don't want to enter personal information and alike". A learner stated that he felt anxious when he thought someone else checked what he had done. Another student noted:
59
Anyway, all of the information including my notes will be erased at the end of the semester. This will be my profession. I may always need this information in the future. Instead, I prefer to run the notepad software and type that information in a notepad document. At least, they would stay in my computer permanently.
4.2 Learners' Use of Cognitive Tools The second research question investigated how and for what purposes learners used cognitive tools in the web-based learning environment. For each tool, learners' tool use purposes and the patterns of cognitive tool utilization were examined. While Table 4.2 illustrates the purposes of learners’ cognitive tool use, Table 4.2 shows the criteria used for the classification of learners' purposes of each cognitive tool use, which were adopted from the criteria used by Iiyoshi (1999). In the next sections, the usage of each tool will be discussed.
Table 4.2 Purposes of Learners’ Cognitive Tool Use Seeking Highlight Bookmark Notebook History Sitemap Glossary Search Pagenote Note to Remember
ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Selecting
Organizing
ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Integrating
Generating
ü
ü
ü
ü ü ü ü
ü ü ü ü
ü
ü
60
Table 4.3 Criteria Used for the Classification of Learners’ Purpose of Tool Use Classification
Criteria
of learners' purposes of tool use 1. Seeking
Was
the
tool
used
for
identifying
and
locating
relevant
information in either the learning environment or the existing knowledge and adding that information to sensory memory? 2. Selecting
Was the tool used for choosing relevant information in sensory memory
and
combining
that
information
to
short-term
memory? 3. Organizing
Was the tool used for establishing relationships with the selected information in short-term memory into a coherent whole?
4. Integrating
Was the tool used for connecting the new organized information to existing knowledge in long-term memory?
5. Generating
Was the tool used for constructing personal knowledge?
Use of Highlight Table 4.4 Utilization of Highlight by Numbers Action
Tool use
Highlight > Add
1728
Highlight > Open
195
Highlight > Delete
43
Total
1966
61
Highlight tool was the most frequently used cognitive tool (1966 out of 3717 uses of the tools). 1728 passages of text were highlighted. Moreover, Highlight was opened 195 times and the delete action of the Highlight tool was utilized 43 times for deleting some highlighted items.
989 (57%) of the highlighted passages were associated with the reserved word "---nothing---", showing that the user did not associate the text with a keyword, whereas 739 (43%) of the highlighted passages were associated with a user-defined keyword. Some examples for highlighted passages that were associated with a user-defined keyword can be given as: associating " MAC addresses are 48 bits in length and are expressed as twelve hexadecimal digits." with the keyword "mac length", associating " is the measure of how much information can flow from one place to another in a given amount of time." with the keyword " bandwith", and associating " Two reasons for using hubs are to create a central connection point for the wiring media, and increase the reliability of the network." with the keyword " Why we use hub?".
The data revealed that Highlight was used for information seeking and selecting purposes as shown in table 4.4.
More specifically, Highlight was used for accessing the representations (e.g., associating "metropolitan area networks (MANs)" with the keyword "MAN"), and the definitions (e.g., associating "The OSI model is the primary architectural model for networks. It describes how data and network information are communicated from applications on one computer, through the network media, to an application on another computer." with the keyword "OSI") of
62
abbreviations easily. A student remarked, "I highlighted abbreviations, so that I can find them later when I need". It is very interesting that a learner used the Highlight tool for building his personal glossary. He explained that he associated the definitions of terms with the terms themselves and then by opening the Highlight tool by the previously entered keywords, he could find the explanation of terms.
Highlight was also used for marking important and key points and for attracting attention when the content was read later. For example a student associated " Watch out for the Four Repeater Rule for 10Mbps Ethernet, also know as the 5-4-3 Rule, when extending LAN segments. This rule states that you can connect five network segments end-to-end using four repeaters but only three segments can have hosts (computers) on them." with "****". This student also used "*", "**", and "***" to prioritize the importance of matters according to himself. When the researcher asked the students their purposes for using the Highlight tool, a student replied as: … after reading the contents, I highlighted the places that I can understand the concept when by reading these places. After that, I don't need to read the rest. I mean, I only read the highlighted text. Another student added that "when I read the content again, the highlighted passages that I selected earlier as important places attracted my attention".
Besides, learners reported that they used the Highlight tool in order to access the significant passages in the content later (e.g., "I highlighted the
63
places that are important for me in locating them easier when I need to read them again").
In addition, some learners gave very personal keywords having special meanings in the Highlight tool. Some examples of these keywords can be given as "I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!", " TCP??", " bridge?router?", "in the project", and "what is collision domain?".
Use of Bookmark Table 4.5 Utilization of Bookmark by Numbers Action
Tool use
Bookmark > Add
367
Bookmark > Open
140
Bookmark > Delete
15
Total
522
Bookmark was the second most frequently used cognitive tool (522 out of 3717 uses of the tools). 367 pages were added to the Bookmark. It was opened 140 times and the delete page of the Bookmark was opened 15 times for deleting some items from the users' bookmarks. Only 17 items in the Bookmark were showing a location outside of the web-site of the course, which are called as external links. For example, a learner added a page giving the definition of MAC address (http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/MAC_address.html) to his bookmark with the title of "MAC_Address". Learners generally didn't change the default titles of the bookmark items. 477 bookmarked items had their default
64
titles, whereas only 28 bookmarked items had different titles than their default titles (e.g., "Summary of Data Encapsulation").
The data showed that Bookmark was used for information seeking and selecting purposes as shown in table 4.5. More specifically, students reported that they used Bookmark for three main purposes: (1) accessing necessary information from the contents of the web-course easily, (2) revisiting beneficial web-sites outside of the web-course easily (e.g., "A part of the assignment required Internet search. I looked for it with my friends… I added the links of the web-sites to my Bookmark to access them later"), and (3) not forgetting their last visited content (e.g., A learner added a page to his bookmark with the title of "I am at data link"). Users of the web-course also used the Bookmark tool to mark some pages with personal information. For example, some Bookmarks had titles as "beginning of first week of December", "I don't understand this picture", "Lan Devices picture", and "Computer Mobility (page1) 28 November"
Use of Notebook Table 4.6 Utilization of Notebook by Numbers Action
Tool use
Notebook > Add
63
Notebook > Open
75
Notebook > Open > View a note
66
Notebook > Open > View a note > Modify
3
Notebook > Delete
4
Total
211
65
Notebook was the fourth mo st frequently used cognitive tool (211 out of 3717 uses of the tools). 63 notes were added to users' Notebooks. It was opened 75 times, and then notes were viewed 66 times by the users of the webcourse. Only 3 notes were modified and just 4 of the notes in the Notebook were deleted.
The data revealed that Notebook was used to seek, select, organize, integrate and generate information.
It was stated that Notebook was used for accessing the required information more easily and quickly. A learner said that: … When I open the Notebook, the titles of notes are listed there. If I have a question about these titles, I firstly look at the Notebook to see whether it exists in the Notebook or not. If it is in the Notebook, I read it there instead of searching it from the table of contents and trying to find the exact page.
The data collected from the computer logs indicated that most of the students copied text from the contents of the course and pasted them to the bookmark. For example, it was understood that a learner copied " is how the hosts communicate across the medium. The two most common types of logical topologies are Broadcast and Token-passing." from the contents of the webcourse, then pasted this passage to the Notebook and gave it " The logical topology" title name.
On the other hand, notebook was rarely used to organize, integrate and generate information. The data obtained from the computer logs showed that a few learners added their summaries, key points or relationships of the concept
66
as notes to the Notebook. For example, a learner added a personal note, which did not exist in the contents of the course materials, "router looks for the IP of the incoming packet. It may accept or reject." with the title of "network L.". Another learner took a note showing the relationships between some concepts under the title of "voltage,current,resistance relationship".
Furthermore, Notebook was used for other purposes, such as to remind users of something, to take a personal note or to mark the last read content. For example, a student added a note "read the function of ARP" with the title of "remember2".
Another
note
was
"314
assignment,457
assignemnt,487,365
write." with the title of "assignments". An interesting note had a title as "where am I?" and its content was "I am at decimal number system".
Use of Pagenote Table 4.7 Utilization of Pagenote by Numbers Action
Tool use
Pagenote > Add
80
Pagenote > Modify
8
Pagenote > Delete
5
Total
93
Pagenote was the second least frequently used cognitive tool (93 out of 3717 uses of the tools). 80 notes were added to the pages, 8 of them were modifies and 5 of them were deleted by the users of the web-course.
67
The data indicated that Pagenote was used to select, organize, integrate, and generate information. It was not used to seek information which is the processes of identifying and finding relevant information in either the learning environment or the existing knowledge.
Some learners used Pagenote for giving explanations for the text that they highlighted. For example a learner highlighted the text "Two reasons for using hubs are to create a central connection point for the wiring media, and increase the reliability of the network." and associated this text with "Why we use hub?". In the same page, the same learner added a Pagenote as "There are 2 types of hubs: active and passive. The active ones work with a power supply. But the passive ones only split the signals for the users".
Another use of Pagenote was to explain what the abbreviation in the page stood for. For instance, a student' note on the page was " PDU= protocol data unit". In the group interview, this student told the researcher that "Instead of searching the abbreviations in the Glossary or in the contents, I write the long forms of abbreviations as notes at the bottom of the pages". Besides, some learners added some pagenotes such as "important!", and "***" in order to give priority to contents. An interviewee said that "if the content is important or if it is a must to learn that content, I type important for the PageNote.". Students also added some notes as "RIP?", "Ask the teacher", "What do the colors in the dots mean?" when they have some problems with the concepts. In addition, there were personal notes added to the pages like "in the project", "homework", and "do this question".
68
Use of Search Table 4.8 Utilization of Search by Numbers Action
Tool use
Search
123
The Search tool was used 123 times (out of 3717 uses of the tools). The Search was 116 times made in course contents, 3 times in Notebook, 2 times in course titles, 1 time in bookmark titles and 1 time in associated keywords of the Highlight tool. The data revealed that it was used for information seeking, and selecting, organizing, and integrating.
This tool was mainly used to seek and select information. While learners work on their assignments, they needed some information. At these times they used Search to access necessary information. Students also reported that they used this tool to get more information about a term or an abbreviation. For example,
learners
searched
"MDF",
"POP",
"cabling",
"Full
dublex",
and
"ethernet".
Besides, Search was also used to organize and integrate information because learners wanted to find out the relationships between concepts and where a concept was mentioned. A learner explained his reason for using Search as "Where is the concept? What is it related with? Where is it mentioned? I use Search for these reasons".
69
Use of Glossary Table 4.9 Utilization of Glossary by Numbers Action
Tool use
Glossary
438
Glossary was the third most frequently used cognitive tool (438 out of 3717 uses of the tools) and it was the most widely used tool with History (29 out of 31 students used the tool). The data showed that Glossary was used for information seeking, selecting, organizing and integrating.
Glossary was frequently used in order to find the definitions of terms and to learn what the abbreviations stand for. A learner said: I use Glossary, because it is like a dictionary. For example, when you are reading a passage, there might be an unknown term. You look at it in the Glossary, then you will find the meaning of the term. In addition, when the users opened the Glossary, they also looked up the related terms of the current term by following the hyperlink given. Hence, they had the opportunity to establish relationships between the new concepts for them, and connect the new information to the existing knowledge. The data obtained from the computer logs showed that some of the users used the Glossary tool consecutively by clicking the related links. For example, at the end of the definition of the Internet, there was a "See also" link as "ARPANET", and at the end of the ARPANET, there existed 4 hyperlinks: "ARPA", "BBN", "DARPA" and "Internet". Similarly, The definition of WAN (Wide-area network) ends with sentence "Compare with LAN and MAN" where LAN and MAN are hyperlinks.
70
Use of History Table 4.10 Utilization of History by Numbers Action
Tool use
History
123
History was the third least used tool (156 out of 3717 uses of the tools), but it was one of the most widely utilized cognitive tool (29 out of 31 students used the tool). There were three options in this tool that the users could select the time period as "today", "yesterday" and "this week". The Data obtained from the computer logs showed that "today" which was the default option was selected 140 times, "this week" was chosen 34 times, and yesterday was preferred 20 times. The data revealed that this tool was opened for information seeking and selecting purposes.
Learners used History in order to monitor their learning activities (e.g., "I open it to see what I did"), identify their last visited content (e.g., "I use it to find my latest position in the site"), and judge how much they studied (e.g., "I have a look at how far I progressed. At least I try to determine whether I studied enough or not").
Use of Sitemap Table 4.11 Utilization of Sitemap by Numbers Action
Tool use
Sitemap
156
71
Sitemap was opened 156 times. The data indicated that this tool was used for information seeking, selecting, organizing and integrating purposes.
Sitemap was often used to seek and select information. The users preferred to use it when they wanted to see all the titles of the concepts and then access the relevant information by clicking the hyperlink of a concept. For example a learner stated that sitemap was more useful than table of contents, because it showed all the concepts in one page in a tree view.
This tool was employed to organize and integrate information, because some students used Sitemap to see the hierarchical structure of the concepts in one page. Thus, it allowed users to identify where a concept was and under which concept it was (e.g. "I want to see... location of a particular concept within the hierarchical structure of the concepts…").
Besides, Sitemap was used for distinguishing the concepts that were not read by the student. A user stated that "I used Sitemap to see the remaining concepts. I opened it, because I felt anxiety if I could complete reading the concepts". It was also employed to identify the last content that was read, since the color of the hyperlinks that were visited changed. Thus, learners could easily go on studying where they had left.
72
Use of Note to Remember Table 4.12 Utilization of Note to Remember by Numbers Action
Tool use
Note to Remember > Add
9
Note to Remember > Modify
0
Note to Remember > Delete
5
Total
14
Note to Remember or Reminder was the least used cognitive tool (14 out of 3717 uses of the tools) and it was the least widely used tool. Only 8 out of 31 students used it. 9 notes were added to the main page of the course as a reminder, and 5 of them were deleted by the users.
The data showed that this tool was used just to select information. It was mostly employed to make the user remember any important note. Some notes of
this
kind
were
as:
"Don't
forget
to
use
external
links",
"DATA
ENCAPSULATION", and "MUST COMPLETE CABLING ON MONDAY"
Multiple Use of Cognitive Tools The date showed that some learners used multiple tools in the web-based learning environment. Highlight and Pagenote, Highlight and History, Search and Glossary were used together by some students.
The data revealed that Pagenote was used compleme ntary for the Highlight tool. Some users gave information about the highlighted passages or gave the priority of highlighted items in their pagenotes (e.g., "I used the
73
Highlight and the Pagenote together. First, I highlighted the passages that I found imp ortant, then I took notes in the Pagenote to indicate that the highlighted passage is very important").
In addition, Highlight and History were used together. Learners had the opportunity to view the passages that they highlighted before.
For example a
learner said "… plus I can see what I highlighted in some particular pages by opening the History. As a result, I can access and then read these important places".
Besides, students used the Search tool to find out more information about a term when they could not find a satisfying definition in the Glossary or wanted to get more information about the term. For example, an interviewee stated, "I used Glossary and Search together. I look up some terms in the Glossary. Afterwards, I use Search to find extra information".
Cognitive Tool Use Frequencies of Students There is a great variation among students in terms of cognitive tool use frequencies. As shown in figure 4.2 while some of the students used the different cognitive tools frequently others used them rarely. There is also a great variation among the cognitive tools in terms of their usage numbers by the students. As shown in table 4.13 while some of the tools are widely used by the students such as Glossary, some are not extensively used such as Note to Remember.
74
Total Cognitive Tool Use by Students
800
700
600
500
Frequency Number of Tool Use 400
Total Cognitive Tool Use 300
200
100
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
0 Students
Figure 4.2 Cognitive Tool Use Frequencies of Students
Table 4.13 Number of Students Used Different Cognitive Tools Cognitive Tool
Number of students used
Glossary
29
History
29
Highlight
26
Sitemap
24
Search
20
Bookmark
19
Pagenote
18
Notebook
13
Note to Remember
8
75
Table 4.14 All Actions within the Web Site Name of Action View a Content Page View a Component Page View the Main Page Login to the System Logout from the System Highlight Text View Glossary Add to Bookmarks View History Open Highlighted Items View Sitemap Open Bookmarks Search Add Pagenote Open Notebook View a Note in Notebook Add a Note to Notebook Delete Highlighted Text(s) View Help Delete Bookmark Item(s) Add Reminder Modify Pagenote Delete Reminder Delete Pagenote Remove Note(s) in Notebook Modify a Note in Notebook
Count 34323 10076 2749 1957 933 1728 438 367 194 195 156 140 123 80 75 66 63 43 17 15 9 8 5 5 4 3
4.3 Support Provided by the Cognitive Tools Table 4.15 shows the learners' perceptions to what extent the cognitive tools supported students' learning in the web-based learning environment. The data indicated that according to the students, the most effective cognitive tools in terms of their support for learning were Glossary, Search, and Highlight. On the other hand, learners' perceptions were more neutral for Sitemap, Bookmark, Pagenote, Note to Remember, History, and Notebook, because these students did not frequently use these tools.
76
Table 4.15. Results of the Perc eptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaires Cognitive Tool Glossary Search Highlight Sitemap Bookmark Pagenote Note to Remember History Notebook
SD 0 (0.00%) 1 (4.35%) 2 (8.70%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (8.70%) 1 (4.35%) 1 (4.35%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%)
D 1 (4.35%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (8.70%) 4 (17.39%) 2 (8.70%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) 3 (13.04%) 6 (26.09%)
N 4 (17.39%) 4 (17.39%) 7 (30.43%) 9 (39.13%) 10 (43.48%) 10 (43.48%) 14 (60.87%) 9 (39.13%) 11 (47.83%)
A 7 (30.43%) 11 (47.83%) 4 (17.39%) 5 (21.74%) 4 (17.39%) 6 (26.09%) 6 (26.09%) 6 (26.09%) 4 (17.39%)
SA 11 (47.83%) 7 (30.43%) 8 (34.78%) 5 (21.74%) 5 (21.74%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) 2 (8.70%) 1 (4.35%)
n
mean
23
4.22
23
4.00
23
3.61
23
3.48
23
3.35
23
3.30
23
3.22
23
3.04
23
2.91
Support Provided by Highlight The data obtained from the interviews revealed that Highlight supported students’
learning
by
providing
easy
and
quick
access
to
the
required
information. When learners searched information from the associated keywords of their highlighted passages, they could find necessary information more easily. For instance, a student said: When you search in your assigned [keywords] … you will find it more quickly… For example, the word byte is mentioned in a lot of [pages]. You can't easily find the definition of byte, but when I previously assigned it, I could directly find it from my [associated keywords].
According to some learners, when they used Highlight, they could more easily remember information. For example a learner noted that he spent more cognitive effort during the highlighting process, so that he could visualize his prior actions like associating a passage with a keyword. By means of using Highlight, learners were more active in their learning activities. A respondent
77
commented that his learning activities would not be monotonous when he used Highlight, because it required the learner be active.
Besides, Highlight facilitated students' reading the content again and saved time. For example, a learner said, "… instead of reading all the page again, you just read the highlighted passages". Another noted, "… When it will be the time of final examination, we may not find enough time to read all the contents. However, we may go over them, so we may read from the Highlight…".
The data showed that although Highlight was the most frequently used cognitive tool, it was the third most effective cognitive tool that supported students' learning according to the perceptions of learners.
Support Provided by Bookmark Students' perceptions of the support that the Bookmark provided were more positive than negative. (39.13% positive, 17.39 negative, and 43.48 neutral), but the neutral ones should not be underestimated. Only 12 out of 31 students (38.71%) had not ever used this tool.
For the ones who used Bookmark, this tool supported students' learning by providing easy and direct access to necessary web-sites in the Internet (e.g., "You can access the web-sites that you visited before, or those which may be useful"), or the contents within the web-course (e.g., "Instead of accessing a page [by using navigation buttons such as next], you can access it directly").
78
Support Provided by Notebook According to the students, Notebook was the least useful cognitive tool. Only 21.74 percent of learners think that it supported their learning, whereas 30.43 percent of students disagreed with the statement. However, it should not be overestimated that nearly half of the students were neutral about the usefulness of Bookmark, because 18 out of 31 students (58.06%) had never used it.
Support Provided by Pagenote The data showed that some of the students took advantage of Pagenote, because by the help of this cognitive tool learners didn't have to search the meanings of abbreviations in the Glossary so that they didn't loose their attention. The learners who added some personal notes such as the degree of importance of a concept got benefit from this tool.
Support Provided by Search According to the Results of the Perceptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaires, Search was the second most useful tool. The data gathered from the interviews indicated that this tool aided students to find required information, where a concept was mentioned and related as well. An interviewee stated, "Search may be very beneficial. It reduces the pages that [a concept] was mentioned to 4 or 5." Another said, "It is a very important facilitator. Suppose that we are reading a book. We use the index of a book to find where the concept was mentioned… [Search] does the same job in your computer".
79
Support Provided by Glossary The data showed that Glossary was the most useful tool in terms of its support for learners. Students reported that Glossary aided their learning, because when they used this tool they could more easily recall necessary information, access the definitions of relevant terms, and remember more information. Besides, Glossary also helped learners to identify the relationships between concepts (e.g., "The links in Glossary makes [the relationships between the concepts] clear… Everything has an order, a hierarchy. One is related with another").
Support Provided by History According to the students' perceptions, History was one of the least useful cognitive tools. 34.78 percent of the students’ perceptions of tool usefulness were positive, while 26.09 percent of the learners disagreed that History supported their learning.
The data obtained from the interviewees who thought History was a useful tool, revealed that when learners used this tool, they could more easily monitor and visualize their learning processes and their progress. For instance, a learner reported that:
I [open History] to see how much I studied… At least I looked for whether I studied enough or not… The support that it provides for me is that I can decide if I should study more or should slow down, because [by using History] I can visualize [my learning activities].
In addition, learners could continue to their last read content by the help of History (e.g., "It is more easy to return the contents back by History").
80
Support Provided by Sitemap 43.48 percent of students had the perception that Sitemap supported their learning. On the other hand 17.39 percent of learners had the opinion that this tool did not assisted their learning processes. Meanwhile, 39.13 percent of the students were neither positive nor negative about the usefulness of Sitemap.
Support Provided by Note to Remember The data showed that most of the students' perceptions (60.87%) on the usefulness of Note to Remember were neutral, because only a few learners used this tool. 74.19 percent of the students had never used Note to Remember.
81
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter addresses major findings related to the research questions of the study and their implications for practice and further studies. 5.1 Conclusions The results of the study given in the previous chapter provide evidence that factors influencing the learners' use of cognitive tools in web-based learning environments fall into four categories: course, learners, tools, and learning environment. More specifically, course related factors are the level and the evaluation preferences
criteria to
of
the
classical
course.
methods,
Learning limited
strategies,
capacity
of
prior
knowledge,
memory, and time
constraints are the more specific factors that influence the learners. For the tools, lack of orientation and usability are listed as the factors, which affect the use of the cognitive tools. Lastly, the nature, cost and reliability of the learning environment have an effect on tool utilization.
Level of the course affected the learners' selection and use of cognitive tools. The results indicate that when the course is an introductory course that covers fundamental concepts and definitions of terms, learners tend to use the tools for lower order purposes such as information seeking and selecting than higher order purposes such as information integration.
82
The results of the study show that learners tend to use the tools more when an external motivator is provided. When the students believe that use of the cognitive tools is a part of the assessment procedures, they are positively reinforced.
Learning strategies of students have a great influence on the selection and the use of the tools. The data showed that the learners do not intend to give up their learning strategies in spite of the fact that the learning environment is changed.
Students who do not have enough prior knowledge on a subject are apt to use tools for information seeking and selecting purposes. Thus, they use tools like Glossary and Search, which could support them in finding necessary information. As it is cited in Kommers and Vries, one should not overlook the fact that effective acquisition of textual information depends on the readers' linking new information to their existing knowledge structure (Ausubel, 1963; Norman 1973; Pask, 1975).
The results also indicate that some learners are still in favor of applying classical methods while studying. For example, these students prefer taking notes by themselves instead of taking electronic notes by computer.
Learners use some cognitive tools to inhibit their limited capacity of memory. In order not to forget some relevant information, students use cognitive tools such as Bookmark and History.
83
Time constraints of the students influences the use of the tools indirectly. When the learners couldn't devote enough time for the course, consequently they have less chance of using tools effectively.
One of the major factors that affected the utilization of cognitive tools is the lack of orientation towards the utilization of the tools. The results show that learners are not given enough information about the features, usage and functions of the cognitive tools, so this causes unintended utilization of cognitive tools.
Usability of the tools is one of the factors that have an influence on the use of the cognitive tools, because comments from the learners suggest that students are unlikely to use a tool when it is not practical for them.
Some problems that are inherently caused by the nature of the webbased learning environment affected students' selection and use of the cognitive tools. These problems are stated as (1) their eyes got tired when they looked at the screen for a long period of time (2) unlikelyness of the students to sit in front of a computer for a long time, (3) the slow speed of the Internet connections, (4) frequent unexpected termination of the Internet connections, and (5) the difficulties that the students accommodating in university campus faced to find computers to study.
Reliability of the environment also influences students' selection of cognitive tools. The students who think that their personal information on the web-site will be read or erased by someone else prefer not to use these tools.
84
The cost of the Internet connections for the ones who connect to the Internet from home have a considerable influence on the use of cognitive tools. Accordingly, students close their Internet connections as soon as possible, so they do not have the chance to use the cognitive tools embedded in the web-site of the course when they are offline.
The results indicate that cognitive tools are mostly used to seek and select information. On the other hand, learners rarely use these tools for higher order cognitive processes such as information organizing, integrating, and generating.
In addition, the results of the study show that learners' perceptions on the usefulness of cognitive tools in terms of their support for learning are generally positive. However, for some tools the number of students who are neutral to the support that the tools provide is respectively high, because these tools are not used as frequently and effectively as intended.
5.2 Implications for Practice Cognitive tools have considerable promise in empowering learners in web-based learning environments (Iiyoshi, 1999). Research studies, concerning factors that affect the use of the tools, patterns and the effects of cognitive tool use are necessary to come up with more effective cognitive tools. This study provides several implications for the design and use of the cognitive tools for web-based learning environments. The potential developers of cognitive tools should consider these guidelines during their design processes.
85
Implication 1. Tool orientation sessions should be provided. Students can only use the tools effectively, when they understand the usage, functions, and features of the tools (Iiyoshi, 1999). For this reason, the tool orientation should be provided to fill the discrepancy between the actual use of tools determined by the designers and the perceived use of the tools by learners. According to Sugrue (2000), a student controlled online help system should be embedded in a web-course so that it can provide a high level of cognitive
support,
because
learners
are
more
likely
to
proceduralize
the
knowledge when they acquire information in the context of its use. Besides, guidance and training can help novice users get to know the system and use it to its best advantage, so that smooth, error-free performance and a good conceptual understanding of the system model can be achieved (Marshall, Nelson, Gardiner, 1987).
Implications 2. Cognitive tools should be easy to use. Learners use cognitive tools effectively and efficiently if the tools are usable. According to the usability parameters of Nielsen (1990), the tools need to be easy to learn, efficient to use, easy to remember, pleasant to use and make few errors. According to Marshall, Nelson and Gardiner (1987), procedures should be logically, consistently, and in a manner which is acceptable to the users and meets with their existing knowledge expectations. Hence, procedures of the cognitive tools should correspond with the similar procedures and tasks that are carried out in the non-electronic world. Jonassen and Reeves (1996) assert that well designed cognitive tools should be easy to learn, so that the mental effort needed to learn the software should not exceed the benefits.
86
Implication 3. Instructional activities should demand the use of higher order thinking. According to Iiyoshi (1999), a cognitive tool can be used effectively provided that the nature of the tasks requires the learners to use the tool in such a way. Usefulness of a tool should not be disputed independently from cognitive processes required in a particular task. Cognitive tools will have their greatest effectiveness when they are applied within constructivist learning environments where tasks or problems for the application of cognitive tools will be situated in realistic contexts with results that are personally meaningful for learners (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996).
Implication 4. Internet connections should be more secure, stable, cheap and fast. According to Hannum (2001), one of the most serious limitations of webbased instruction is bandwidth. Accordingly, slow connections to the Internet limits web-based instruction use. If we want to prevent the influence of haphazard
factors
influence
our
students'
learning
in
web-based learning
environments, more attention should be shown to improve Internet connections in terms of their speed, security, stability and finally cost.
5.3 Implications for Research As the interest in web-based instruction is growing, more research studies are needed to investigate the use of cognitive tools in web-based learning environments in order to establish stronger empirical and theoretical foundations of
design
and
use
of
cognitive
tools.
recommendations derived from the present study.
87
This
section
addresses
the
Implication 1. Various data collection techniques should be employed to capture cognitive processes. One means of gaining information about the course of the cognitive processes is to probe the subjects' internal states by verbal methods (Simon and Ericsson, 1993). In order to collect data regarding cognitive processes and learners' reasons as well as decisions for using cognitive tools during learning, some
data
collection
techniques
such
as
think-aloud
protocols,
behavior
protocols or retrospective reports can be employed. Think-aloud protocol is documenting what subjects say while they perform a task by asking them to verbalize their thought processes. Behavior protocol is recording what subjects do while they perform a task but not asking them to report their thought processes verbally. Retrospective report is asking subjects to tell how they performed a task after the task has been completed.
Implication 2. Research design should be strengthened through triangulation. One way of strengthening a research design is through triangulation which
is
using
several
kinds
of
methods
or
data,
including
using
both
quantitative and qualitative approaches (Patton, 1990). Accordingly, there are four types triangulation: (1) data triangulation- the use of a variety of data sources, (2) investigator triangulation- the use of several different researchers, (3) theory triangulation- the use of multiple perspectives to interpret data, and (4) methodological triangulation- the use of multiple methods to investigate a research problem.
88
Although the researcher used triangulation in the present study by means of data collection methods and sources, a variety of methods, data sources, researchers, and perspectives could be employed. In this respect, think-aloud protocols, behavior protocols, and retrospective reports could be conducted. An outside researcher could be involved in the data analysis to have another perspective.
Besides,
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
methods
may
be
combined to gain a better assessment of the validity of the findings of the study.
89
REFERENCES Allessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and Development. 3rd edition. Boston: Allyn &Bacon
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York: Grune and Stratton; Also New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bates, A. W.(2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Beer, V. (2000) The web learning fieldbook: using the world wide web to build workplace learning environments, NY: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education. Boston: Allyn And Bacon
Bishop, M. J., & Cates, W. M. (2001). Theoritical foundations for sound's use in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 49(3), 5-22.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8(4), 293-332
Cerijo, M. V. P., Young, J., & Wilhlelm, R. (2001). Factors facilitating student participation in asynchronous web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1), 32-39
90
Derry, S. J., & LaJoie, S. P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent computing: An introduction. In S. P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (s. 1-11). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, In D. H., eds. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Fraenkel J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Gamberini, L., & Bussolon, S. (2001). Human navigation environments. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(1), 57-65
in
electronic
Hannafin, M. J., & Peck, K. L. (1998). The design, development, and evaluation of instructional software. New York: Macmillan
Hannafin, M. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part I. Educational Technology Research and Development 37 (2), 91-101
Hannum, W. (2001). Web-Based Training: Advantages and Limitations. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Training. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web. Educational Technology Research and Development 45 (4), 37-64
Iiyoshi, T., & Hannafin M. (1998). Cognitive Tools for Open-Ended Learning Environments: Theoretical and Implementation Perspectives, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 13-17, 1998, San Diego, California, USA.
91
Iiyoshi, T. (1999). Cognitive processing using cognitive tools in open-ended hypermedia learning environments: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University.
Jih, H. J., & Reeves, T. C. (1992). Mental models: A research focus for interactive learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 39-53.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are Cognitive Tools?. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H., & Henning, P. (1999). Mental models: Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. Educational Technology, May-June, 37-41
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Second Edition. NJ: Merrill
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology 21 (1), 5-23
92
Katz, H. A., (1999). Cognitive Tools and their Design Implications for the Interactive Hypermedia Instructional Program: HIV/AIDS Prevention Education for Women of Color, Short Paper presented at Ed-Media 1999
Khan, B. H. (1997a). Web-Based Training: An Introduction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Training. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Khan, B. H. (1997b). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it?. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Khan, B. H. (2001). Web-Based Training: An Introduction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Training. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kommers, P. A. M., & Vries, S. A. (1992). TextVision and the visualisation of knowledge: School-based evaluation of its acceptance at two levels of schooling. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Kozma, R. B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computerbased learning tools. Educational Technology 27(11), 20-25
Kozma, R. B. (1992). Constructing Knowledge with Learning Tool. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (2000). Cognitive tools for medical informatics. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as Cognitive Tools: no more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
93
Leader, L. F., & Klein, J. D. (1996). The effects of search tool type and cognitive style on performance during hypermedia searches. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44(2), 5-15.
Lin, X. (2001) Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 49(2), 23-40.
Lockee, B. B., Burton, J. K., & Cross, L. H. (1999) No comparison: Distance education finds a new use for 'no significant difference'. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 47(3), 33-42.
Lynch, P. J., & Horton, S. (1998). Web style guide: Basic design principles for creating web sites. Yale University Press
Marchionini, G. (1988). Hypermedia and Educational Technology, 28(11), 8-12.
learning:
Freedom
and
chaos.
Marshall, C., Nelson, C., & Gardiner M. M. (1987). Design guidelines. In Gardiner, M. M & Christie, B. (Eds.) Applying Cognitive Psychology to User-interface Design. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405412
Mayer,
R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31, 151-161
McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan
94
McKeague, C. A., & Di Vesta, F. J. (1996). Strategy orientations, learner activity, and learning outcomes: Implications for instructional support of learning. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44(2), 29-42.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. SAGE
Miller,
G. (1956). Human memory and the storage Transactions of Information Theory, 2-3, 129-137
of
information.
IRE
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Najar, N. L. (1998). A study of cognitive learning strategy use on reading tasks in the L2 classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 29 November - 3 December 1998, Adelaide.
Neuman, D. (1989). Naturalistic inquiry and computer-based instruction: Rationale, Procedures, and Potential. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 39-51.
Nielsen, J. (1990). Hypertext and hypermedia. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Norman, D. A., & Solso, R. (Ed.) (1973). Memory, knowledge and answering of questions; Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology. New York: Winston.
Oliver,
K., & Hannafin, M. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94 (2), 75-92.
95
Oren, T. (1990). Cognitive load in Hypermedia: Designing for the exploratory learner. In S. Ambron & K. Hooper (Eds.), Learning with Interactive Multimedia: Developing and Using Multimedia Tools in Education. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Metacognition research and theory: Analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 83-89.
Ozkul,
A. E. (2001). Anadolu university distance education system from emergence to 21s t century. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 2(1).
Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 41(3), 63-85.
Pask. G. (1975). Conversation, cognition and learning. A cybernetic theory and methodology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park:
Pea, R.D. (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist 20 (4), 167-82
Perkins, D. N. (1990) PERSON PLUS: A distributed view of thinking and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 16-20
Reiser, R. A. (2001) A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part I: A History of Instructional Media. Educational Technology Research and Development 49 (1), 53-63
96
Relan, A. , & Gillani, B. B. (1997). Web-Based Instruction and the Traditional Classroom: Similarities and Differences. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1996). Experimental research methods. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1148-1170). New York: Macmillan
Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N. & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher 20 (3), 2-9
Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of writing partner. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (1996). Qualitative research issues and methods: An introduction for educational technologists. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1171-1195). New York: Macmillan
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning Theories: An educational perspective. Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.
Sifaqui, C. (1999). Structuring user interfaces with a meta-model of mental models. Computers & Graphics, 23, 323-330
Simon, H. A., & Ericsson, K. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Report as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
97
Siva, S.R., & Tung, B. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology 28 (3), 191-199.
Sugrue, B. (2000). Cognitive approaches to web-based instruction. Computers as Cognitive Tools: no more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296
Taylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
Yazici, A., Altas, I., & Demiray, U.(2001). Distance education on the net: A model for developing countries. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 2(2).
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Winn, W. & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive Perspectives in Psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112-142). New York: Macmillan
98
APPENDIX A Interview Guide (Görüsme Rehberi)
Arkadaslar, web-destekli ögrenme ortamlarinda bilissel araçlarin kullanimina yönelik bir arastirma yapiyorum ve 314 dersinde kullandiginiz araçlar hakkindaki düsüncelerinizi ögrenmek istiyorum. Bu görüsmede elde ettigim tüm bilgiler sadece bu arastirmada kullanilacak ve kisisel bilgiler kesinlikle gizli tutulacaktir. Görüsmenin yaklasik bir saat sürecegini tahmin ediyorum. Izin verirseniz görüsmeyi kaydetmek istiyorum. Bu arastirmaya katildiginiz için simdiden tesekkür ederim. Görüsmeye baslamadan önce sizin bana sormak istediginiz birsey var mi? Sorularimi 3 grup altinda siniflandirdim: Çok kullanilan ve az kullanilan araçlara yönelik sorular, ayrica araçlarin topluca kullanimina yönelik genel sorular. Araçlar: Highlight, Bookmark, Notebook, PageNote, Search, History, Sitemap, Glossary, Note to Remember/Reminder
1. En çok kullandiginiz araçlar hangileriydi? GRUP 1 • Çok kullanilan araçlara yönelik: 2. Bu araçlari hangi amaçla kullandiniz? 3. Ögrenmenize ve düsünmenize ne gibi bir destek sagladi? 4. Bu destegi nasil sagladi? Sonda: hatirlama, ögrenme stratejileri, bilgiyi bulma, seçme, organize etme, entegre etme, üretme 5. Bu araçlari çok kullanmanizi neler etkiledi? Sonda: kisisel özellikler web-destekli ögrenme ortaminin özellikleri aracin özellikleri konu hakkindaki önbilgi araç asinaligi görev/ödev/isin zorluk derecesi 6. Bu araçlari kullanirken karsilastiginiz sorunlar nelerdir? Sonda: egitim eksikligi yönlendirme eksikligi 99
yardim sayfasi eksikligi 7. Bu araçlarin daha etkili olmasi için çözüm önerileriniz nelerdir?
GRUP 2 8. Sizin en az kullandiginiz araçlar hangileriydi? • Az kullanilan araçlara yönelik: 9. Bu araçlarin az kullanmanizi neler etkiledi? Sonda: kisisel özellikler web-destekli ögrenme ortaminin özellikleri aracin özellikleri konu hakkindaki önbilgi araç asinaligi görev/ödev/isin zorluk derecesi 10. Az kullandiginiz araçlarin gerekliligi/etkinligi/yararliligi hakkinda ne düsünüyorsunuz? Neden? 11. Bu araçlarin daha etkili olmasi için çözüm önerileriniz nelerdir? GRUP 3 Araçlarin topluca kullanimina yönelik: 12. Tüm bu araçlari kullanmaniza hangi faktörler etkiledi? 13. Bu araçlarin topluca ele alirsaniz, düsünmenize ve ögrenmenize katkida bulunmasi açisindan ne kadar etkili buluyorsunuz? 14. Birden çok araci ayni amaç için birlikte kullandiginiz mi? Hangi araçlari? Nasil? Hangi amaçla? 15. Bu araçlarin topluca daha etkili olmasi için önerileriniz nelerdir? (su olsaydi bu araçlari daha etkin kullanabilirdim dediginiz ne gibi durumlar vardir?) 16. Bu araçlar disinda ne gibi bir araç olmasini isterdiniz? Bu aracin ne gibi bir fonksiyonu olmalidir? Neden?
100
APPENDIX B Survey Of Learning Aids and Opinions On The Necessity Of Cognitive Tools The purpose of this survey is to gather information on your learning styles and your opinions on the necessity of cognitive tools. It takes about five minutes to complete this survey. All responses will be kept confidential. Name & Surname: ………………………………………… Directions: Please read the questions and indicate your choice by circling the number that best represents your response for each item. How often do you employ the strategies written below during your learning, thinking and problem solving? 1 means least frequently 5 means most frequently 1. I take notes on the material that I study. 2. I take notes in a notebook. 3. I underline passages on the material that I study. 4. I highlight passages by a highlighter pen. 5. I place a ribbon or a marker between the pages of a book or an other material. 6. I use glossary. 7. I use index (of a book). 8. I use post-it note to remind me of something. 9. Other: ………………..……………………………..……………….. (Please specify)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Cognitive tools are generalizable computer tools that are intended to engage and facilitate the cognitive processes of learners. Some cognitive tools that may be used in web-assisted learning environments are explained below. How would you rate necessity of the tools for supporting your learning in a web course? 1 means least necessary 5 means most necessary 10. Reminder: a tool serving the user as a post-it in the main page of a web course. 11. Highlighter: a tool that calls attention to a particular passage in a web course. It is similar to highlighter pen to mark paper books. 12. Bookmark: a tool that let the user mark a page and return to this page from anywhere in a web course. 13. Notebook: a general tool that can be accessed from any page of a web course and is used to take notes. 14. Pagenote: a tool allowing the user keeps notes in a specific page. 15. Glossary: a tool that lists the definition of terms in a special subject. 16. History: a tool which keeps track of every movement of the user within the whole course. 17. Search: a tool which allows the user to find the pages that include a specific word or a phrase stated. 18. Site Map: a tool which allows the user to visualize the tree structure of the course. 19. Index: a tool that provides an alphabetical listing of terms, and topics along with the hyperlinks of the pages on which they are mentioned or discussed. 20. Other: ………………..………………..………………..……………….. (Please specify)
101
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
1
2
3
4
5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
APPENDIX C Perceptions of the Usefulness of Cognitive Tools Questionnaire Directions: For each item there are five response options; “SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = Neutral, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree”. Please read each item carefully and mark
the response that best represents the degree of your agreement or disagreement with the item. SA A N D SD ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
1. “Highlight” supported my learning. 2. “Bookmark” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
3. “Notebook” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
4. “Pagenote” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
5. “Glossary” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
6. “History” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
7. “Search” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
8. “Sitemap” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
9. “Note to remember” supported my learning.
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
102
