Exploring the Effect of Learning Paradigm on Web-based Learning

1. Exploring the Effect of Learning Paradigm on Web-based Learning Ming-Puu Chen & Jung-Chuan Yen mpchen@ice.ntnu.edu.tw Department of Information and Computer Education National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan

2. Outline • Introduction • Theoretical Background • Implications for WBL • Research Design • Results • Findings • Suggestions

3. Introduction • The web-based technology • increases the speed and forms of knowledge diffusion • facilitates the creation of learner-centered learning environments that promote higher order thinking • Web-based learning • must engages the learners • supports cognitive processing which leads to learners’ knowledge construction Q: What learning approach will be appropriate for a certain form of web-based learning and type of knowledge?

4. Perspectives for e-learning design • From learning theories: • Cognitive theories ( learning as a process knowledge acquisition) • Social and situated learning (learning as a process of participation) • Based on type of learning (4-tiers of e-learning, IBM): • Information • Interactive learning • Collaborative learning • Human Interaction • Based on type of knowledge: • Declarative knowledge • Procedural knowledge • Conditional knowledge • Perspectives for this study: • Acquisition approach vs. Participation approach • Procedural knowledge vs. Problem-solving

5. The Theoretical Background • The information processing theories • learning involves individuals in constructing cognitive structures and schemas that are effective in a variety of situations • focuses on how people • attend to environmental events, • encode information to be learned, • relate it to knowledge in memory, and • retrieve it as needed • learning as a process of acquiring desired pieces of knowledge (human mind = a container) (More traditional perspective for CAL)

6. The situated and social learning theories • learning as a process of participating in various cultural practices and shared learning activities • Knowledge does not exist either in a world of its own or in individual minds but participated in physical and social contexts. • People construct their knowledge as they interact in socio-cultural situations. • It does not emphasize so much on the procedures and outcomes of information processing through the mental structures.

7. Implications for WBL • From the acquisition perspective: • learning as a process of knowledge acquisition • From the participation perspective: • learning as a process of social participation • Suggestions derived from studies: • The complementary view: Researchers might adopt one perspective or the other depending on the nature of the problem in hand. • The synthesized view: The individual and social perspectives are both fundamentally important and should be synthesized into one.

8. Purposes of this Study • To examine the effect of type of learning paradigm on computer problem-solving performance • Acquisition approach vs. Participation approach • To explored the change of learners’ self-efficacy across the web-based problem-solving process • Defining, Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

9. Research Design • The independent variable: • Type of learning paradigm: Acquisition: Cognitive Scaffolded WBL Participation: Interactive WBL with CMC tools • The dependent variables: • Performance: Procedural task performance: DFD, ERD Complex task performance: Final project performance • Amount of interaction during problem solving • Self-efficacy across stages of problem-solving (measured every other week)

10. The Web-based Learning • Target learners: 98 College freshmen • Domain knowledge: • The application of database systems • Learning task: • Form: 6-weekteam project • Process: A 4-stage general process for problem-solving • Defining the problem • Planning for actions • Conducting actions • Evaluating the results

11. The Analysis of Performance and Interaction Procedural task performance: Acquisition group (75.31 ) > Participation group (73.06) Complex task performance: Acquisition group (74.61 ) < Participation group (79.47 )

12. The Analysis of Self-efficacy Week1: Acquisition group = Participation group Week3: Acquisition group = Participation group Week5: Acquisition group < Participation group

13. Findings • Procedural task • Cognitive approach (knowledge acquisition) • Complex task • Social collaborative approach (Participation) • Interaction • Participation approach (more collaboration) • Interaction contributed to complex task performance • Self-efficacy • Short-term (procedural task): equal • Long-term (complex task): Participation

14. Suggestions • Apply suitable approach according to type of knowledge to be learned • Acquisition approach  fundamental knowledge • Participation approach  complex knowledge • In the long run: the participation approach • Better complex tasks learning performance • Higher learning interaction • Higher self-efficacy • Its difficult to have a clear cut between acquisition and participation approaches in real world situation. Instructional design model may be needed.

15. System Demonstration

16. Comments and Questions?