Advertisement

Development of Task Understanding and Monitoring in Information Retrieval Environments: Demystifying Metacognitive and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms in Graduate Learners Using Topic Maps Indexing Technologies to Improve Essay-Writing Skills

  • Vivek Venkatesh
  • Kamran Shaikh
  • Amna Zuberi
  • Kathryn Urbaniak
  • Timothy Gallant
  • Arun Lakhana
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)

Abstract

The empirical research reported in this chapter explores learner metacognition and self-regulation in information retrieval environments equipped with a powerful indexing technology called Topic Maps. The theoretical foundation for our work lies in the nexus of theories of self-regulation and those of cognitive information retrieval. Through a series of mixed-method studies conducted at the Topic Maps laboratory at Concordia University, we describe academic self-regulatory processes associated with graduate learners’ understandings of ill-structured academic writing tasks and attempt to relate them to learners’ metacognitive ability to judge their own performance on iterations of these writing tasks. The thirty-eight participants in the studies described in this chapter used the Topic Maps ­technology throughout a semester to navigate a repository of instructor-annotated essays. The repository was designed not only to help learners complete their own writing assignments, but also to improve their task understanding and better calibrate their performance from one instantiation of the writing assignment to the next. Results are discussed in light of the novel intra-sample statistical analyses used to uncover relationships between academic performance, metacognition and task understanding.

Keywords

Information Retrieval Academic Task Online Learning Environment Metacognitive Monitoring Indexing Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported herein is made possible through grants received by the government of Québec’s fonds québecois de recherché sur la société et la culture as well as from faculty of Arts and Sciences at Concordia University. The authors would like to thank Stef Rucco, Technical Manager of the Department of Education at Concordia University, for his help in setting up, upgrading and securing the Ontopia Knowledge Suite on the department servers.

References

  1. Aleven, V. (2006). An intelligent learning environment for case-based argumentation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 4(2), 191–241.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, R. (2003). The end of the essay? Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baeza-Yates, R. (2003). Information retrieval in the web: Beyond current search engines. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 34(2–3), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begg, I. M., Martin, L. A., & Needham, D. R. (1992). Memory monitoring: How useful is self-knowledge about memory? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (1991). Student learning in the context of school. In J. B. Biggs (Ed.), Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology (pp. 7–29). Hawthorn, VA: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdeau, J., Mizoguchi, R., Hayashi, Y., Psyche, V., & Nkambou, R. (2007). When the domain of the ontology is education. Proceedings of LORNET 2007, User Centered Knowledge Environments: From Theory to Practice, the Fourth Annual LORNET Conference I2LOR 2007 of the LORNET Research Network. Montreal, QC: Lornet.Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Council on Learning [CCL] (2007). Post-secondary education in Canada: Strategies for success. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/PostSecondaryEducation?Language=EN.
  10. Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crampes, M., & Bourdeau, J. (2004). Editorial du numéro spécial, Ontologies pour les EIAH, Revue Sciences et Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication pour l’Education et la Formation, 11, 223–230. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr/num/vol2004/sticef_2004_edito_­special.htm.
  12. Dunlosky, J., & Connor, L. T. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 25, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garshol, L. M. (2004). Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all. Journal of Information Science, 30(4), 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gasevic, D., & Hatala, M. (2006). Ontology mappings to improve learning resource search. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3), 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henri, F., Gagné, P., Maina, M., Gargouri, Y., Bourdeau, J., & Paquette, G. (2006). Development of a knowledge base as a tool for contextualized learning. AI and Society, 20, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hersh, W., Pentecost, J., & Wickam, D. (1996). A task-oriented approach to information retrieval evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(1), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingwersen, P. (2000). Cognitive information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 3–52.Google Scholar
  18. International Organization for Standardisation [ISO] (2002). Topic maps. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0129.pdf.
  19. Kabel, S., de Hoog, R., Wielinga, R., & Anjewierden, A. (2004). The added value of task and ontology-based markup for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(4), 348–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindblom-Ylänne, A., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magnan, F., & Paquette, G. (2006). Telos: An ontology-driven e-learning OS. In S. Weibelzahl & A. Cristea (Eds.) Proceedings of Workshops held at the Fourth International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (AH2006). Lecture Notes in Learning and Teaching. Dublin: National College of Ireland.Google Scholar
  22. McGee, P., Carmean, C., & Jafari, A. (2005). Course management systems for learning: Beyond accidental pedagogy. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mevarech, Z., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
  25. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nietfeld, J. L., Enders, C. K., & Schraw, G. (2006). A Monte Carlo comparison of measures of relative and absolute monitoring accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pepper, S. (2002). The TAO of Topic Maps. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html.
  29. Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1997). Introduction to memory development during childhood and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Schamber, L. (2000). Time-line interviews and inductive content analysis: Their effectiveness for exploring cognitive behaviors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(8), 734–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schraw, G., & Nietfeld, J. (1998). A further test of the general monitoring skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaffer, D. W., & Serlin, R. C. (2004). What good are statistics that don’t generalize? Educational Researcher, 33, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaikh, K., Zuberi, A., & Venkatesh, V. (2012). Exploring counter-theoretical instances of graduate learners’ self-regulatory processes when using online repositories. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 9, 6–19.Google Scholar
  35. Shaw, S., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). The missing link to enhanced course management systems: Adopting learning content management systems in the educational sphere. In P. McGee, C. Carmean, & A. Jafari (Eds.), Course management systems for learning: Beyond accidental pedagogy (pp. 206–231). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simard, A., Broome, J., Drury, M., Haddon, B., O’Neil, B., & Pasho, D. (2007). Understanding knowledge services at Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/nrcan-rncan/M4-45-2006E.pdf.
  37. Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1267–1280.Google Scholar
  38. Tynjälä, P. (2001). Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In P. Tynjälä et al. (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venkatesh, V. (2008). Topic maps as indexing tools in e-learning: Bridging theoretical and practical gaps between information retrieval and educational psychology. International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 2(3), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Venkatesh, V., & Shaikh, K. (2008). Investigating task understanding in online repositories equipped with Topic Map indexes: Implications for improving self-regulatory processes in graduate learners. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 5(3), 22–35.Google Scholar
  41. Venkatesh, V., & Shaikh, K. (2011). Uncovering relationships between task understanding and monitoring proficiencies in post-secondary learners: Comparing work task and learner as statistical units of analyses. Education Research International, 2011, Article ID 735643, 11 pages. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/edu/2011/735643.pdf.
  42. Venkatesh, V., Shaikh, K., & Zuberi, A. (2010). Topic maps as indexing tools in the educational sphere: Theoretical foundations, review of empirical research and future challenges. In K. Perusich (Ed.), Cognitive maps (pp. 1–12). Vienna, Austria: In-Tech.Google Scholar
  43. Venkatesh, V., Shaw, S., Dicks, D., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., & Sanjakdar, R. (2007). Topic maps: Adopting user-centred indexing technologies in course management systems. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(3), 429–450.Google Scholar
  44. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition and education (pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivek Venkatesh
    • 1
  • Kamran Shaikh
    • 1
  • Amna Zuberi
    • 1
  • Kathryn Urbaniak
    • 1
  • Timothy Gallant
    • 1
  • Arun Lakhana
    • 1
  1. 1.Topic Maps Laboratory—Learning for Life Centre, Department of EducationConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations