Advertisement

Participatory learning through behavioral and cognitive engagements in an online collective information searching activity

  • Chia-Ching Lin
  • Chin-Chung Tsai
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the relationships between college students’ behavioral and cognitive engagements while performing an online collective information searching (CIS) activity. The activity aimed to assist the students in utilizing a social bookmarking application to exploit the Internet in a collective manner. A group of 101 college students in Taiwan participated in the research procedure, and performed the CIS activity to glean quality online resources for the given search assignment. The actions taken and annotations and comments made during the activity were recorded as log data, and used as the main resource for later analyses of behavioral and cognitive engagements in the activity. Through cluster analysis of the students’ contributions to the CIS activity, four categories of behavioral engagement were identified, namely “Hitchhiker,” “Individualist,” “Active” and “Commentator,” to represent the students’ investments in performing the activity. Furthermore, to explore the students’ cognitive engagement in the activity, content analysis of the verbal transcripts of their annotations and comments was conducted based on the refined coding framework of the present study. The results of further cluster analysis revealed that the students’ cognitive engagement levels could be identified as “Deep” and “Surface.” Through comparison of their behavioral and cognitive engagements, the findings revealed that the students with “Active” behavioral engagement tended to exhibit a “Deep” level of cognitive engagement. It is therefore suggested that both behavioral and cognitive engagements are critical to participatory learning with practice in CIS activities.

Keywords

Cognitive engagement Online information searching Participatory learning Social bookmarking Web 2.0 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding of this paper is supported by National Science Council, Taiwan, under grant 99-2511-S-011-005-MY3 and 101-2631-S-008-002.

References

  1. Balamuralithara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Virtual laboratories in engineering education: The simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17(1), 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131–146.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, K. A., & Lumpe, A. (2008). Student use of scaffolding software: Relationships with motivation and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, N. L., Markauskaite, L., & Calvo, R. A. (2007). E-portfolios for developing transferable skills in a freshman engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(4), 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, C. K. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in knowledge forum. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1445–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chou, S. W., & Min, H. T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The perspective of social construction. Computers & Education, 52(2), 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Vries, B., van der Meij, H., & Lazonder, A. W. (2008). Supporting reflective in elementary web searching schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, N., Stewardson, G. A., & Lubke, M. M. (2008). Enhancing student learning of an undergraduate manufacturing course with computer simulations. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(3), 558–566.Google Scholar
  13. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, P. C. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guan, Y. H., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, F. K. (2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of a virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science, 34(4), 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, P., & Jarvelin, K. (2005). Collaborative information retrieval in an information-intensive domain. Information Processing and Management, 41(5), 1101–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2009). Using blogs as a professional development tool for teachers: Analysis of interaction behavioral patterns. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, Y. M., Yang, S. J. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Web 2.0 for interactive e-learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jin, X. L., Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Chen, H. P. (2009). How to keep members using the information in a computer-supported social network. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1172–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. H. (2002). Learning as activity. Educational Technology, 42(2), 45–51.Google Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. H., Howlan, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). (Ed.) Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G., & Conolea, G. (2008). Characterising the different blogging behaviours of students on an online distance learning course. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2009). Developing web literacy in collaborative inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 52(3), 668–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Applying social bookmarking to collective information searching (CIS): An analysis of behavioral pattern and peer interaction for co-exploring quality online resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1249–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., & d’ Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2010). Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading comprehension of undergraduates using a Web 2.0 tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0, new literacies, and the idea of learning through participation. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(3), 107–122.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
  37. Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milligan, G. W. (1985). An algorithm for generating artificial test clusters. Psychometrika, 50(1), 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison, P. J. (2008). Tagging of and searching: Search retrieval effectiveness folksonomies on the World Wide Web. Information Processing and Management, 44(4), 1562–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palmer, S., & Hall, W. (2008). Application of podcasting in online engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(1), 101–106.Google Scholar
  41. Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  44. Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(2), 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57–73.Google Scholar
  47. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupil’s understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tsai, C. C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7), 970–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies (Supplementary Vol. 1, pp. 162–163). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  52. von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Xie, Y., Ke, F. F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students’ reflective learning processes. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xie, Y., Ke, F. F., & Sharma, P. (2010). The effects of peer-interaction styles in team blogs on students’ cognitive thinking and blog participation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhu, E. P. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhu, X. H., Chen, A., Ennis, C., Sun, H. C., Hopple, C., Bonello, M., et al. (2009). Situational interest, cognitive engagement, and achievement in physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Network Learning TechnologyNational Central UniversityJhongli CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and EducationNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipei 106Taiwan

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options