1 / 19

Investigating Students’ Cognitive Engagement in e-Learning

Investigating Students’ Cognitive Engagement in e-Learning. by: Nurbiha A Shukor Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS. Introduction.

diata
Download Presentation

Investigating Students’ Cognitive Engagement in e-Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Investigating Students’ Cognitive Engagement in e-Learning by: Nurbiha A Shukor Universiti Teknologi Malaysia INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  2. Introduction • Researches in e-Learning have covered wide areas including learning in asynchronous discussion (Ma, 2009; Schellens et al., 2008; Zhu, 2006; Schellens & Valcke, 2005; Van derMeijden, 2005; Oriogun, 2003). • Previous: Students’ cognitive engagement particularly in face-to-face learning environment (Zhu et al., 2009; Helme & Clarke, 2001; Corno & Mandinach, 1983). INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  3. Background of Problem • important to clarify to what extent does the students’ are cognitively engaged in their learning task; will contribute to knowledge acquisition (Zhu et al, 2009). • for some period: online discourses are information-sharing statement - lower degree of cognitive engagement (Zhu, 2006; Schellens & Valcke, 2005; Schellens et al., 2008; Ma 2009) • no empirical mark that higher order learning (construction of new knowledge and critical analysis of peer interaction) (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000). INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  4. Current Cases • students’ level of engagement will influence learning and their motivation (Mandinach & Corno, 1985) • most used type of interactions is ‘direct response’ and the most frequent cognitive skills: ‘elementary clarification’ (Guan et al., 2006). • discussion scripts are irrelevant to the tested Physic subject, and only 11.49 percent reflects meta-cognitive skills (Guan et al., 2006). • Cheung et al (2004) : the graduate students tend to participate in ‘identifying problems’ rather than ‘discussing problems’. INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  5. Understanding Cognitive Engagement • Zhu et al (2009), Blumenfeld et al (2006), Scott & Walczak (2009), Walker et al (2006), Connell & Wellborn (1991): “the voluntarily employment of students’ cognitive while solving the given tasks”

  6. Understanding Cognitive Engagement • Cognitive engagement is not observable in online learning environment but can be understand from the richness of discussion messages (Zhu, 2006) • “.. attention to related readings and effort in analyzing and synthesizing readings demonstrated in discussion messages. • Cognitive engagement, as defined, involves seeking, interpreting, analyzing, and summarizing information; critiquing and reasoning through various opinions and arguments; and making decisions. ” INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  7. Social Knowledge Construction • Van der Meijden (2005): • “.. The provision of elaborations in the form of: • posing comprehension questions that require explanations, • the provision of answers with arguments or justifications, • presentation of new ideas accompanied by explanation, • the acceptance and rejection of the ideas of others accompanied by arguments for doing this ” INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  8. Objective of Study • What is the students’ level of social knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion? INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  9. Research Methodology • Case study to be discussed on the issue of ‘Portal versus Website; Content Management System versus Learning Management System’ • Discussion is open • Participation was voluntarily • No time limit INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  10. Data Analysis • Van der Meijden’s coding scheme (2005); • Message as the unit of analysis - more manageable number of cases and the meaning of each messages can be clearly identified (Rourke et al., 2001).

  11. Results & Discussion • Table 1: Total percentages of the coded messages according to levels of social knowledge construction INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  12. Results & Discussion 1 • Discussion evolved about the area of ‘answering without explanation’ (18.42 percent) • Students prefer to give direct responses rather than giving opinions on the given issue (7.89 percent for CI 1) : giving the complete name for the term ‘LMS’ and ‘CMS’ • Helme and Clarke (2001): the characteristics of the tasks can bring significant influence to cognitive engagement INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  13. Results & Discussion 2 • asking comprehensive questions (CHV 2) dominated by the lecturer (CHV 2= 10.53 percent) • role of a moderator is crucial for initiating fruitful discussion: Shi (2010) - intellectual engagement is very much depended upon teacher’s number and quality of postings as well as students’ participation. • students rarely reach the higher-level of knowledge construction due to insufficient guidance and support for online discussion (Schellens et al., 2008). INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  14. Results & Discussion 3 • asking comprehensive questions (CHV 2) dominated by the lecturer (CHV 2= 10.53 percent) • role of a moderator is crucial for initiating fruitful discussion: Shi (2010) - intellectual engagement is very much depended upon teacher’s number and quality of postings as well as students’ participation. • students rarely reach the higher-level of knowledge construction due to insufficient guidance and support for online discussion (Schellens et al., 2008). INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  15. Results & Discussion 4 • Overall: contribution at the higher-level remains considerably low (28.95%) compared to those obtained by Schellens et al., (2008) INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  16. Results & Discussion 4 • Overall findings support students’ behavior while interacting in small group with teachers as indicated by Helme and Clarke (2001): • students answer teacher’s questions(CHG1= 18.42%) • giving information (CI 1= 7.89%), • explaining procedures and reasoning (CHG2= 2.63%), • questions addressed to teachers (CHV 1= 2.63%), • reflective self-questioning (CHVER= 5.26 %). INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  17. Limitations • Single coder codes the messages: issues of reliability are inevitable • Findings from the research are useful to provide an overview of students’ cognitive engagement in the context of social knowledge construction. INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  18. Conclusion • Students’ level of engagement remains low; • Nature of the tasks; • The role of moderator/ facilitator influenced discussion; INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

  19. Thank You INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS

More Related