Students’ Decision Steps In Meta-Cognitive Learning 
In Free Online Groups (Metal-Frog): A Case Study

Year 2011, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 152 - 165, 01.03.2011

Kinsley Ng SEN Fa Firuz Hussin Hussın

Abstract

What prompts the students to respond in online dialogic discussion? Why some students chose to fall out? This case study through the lens of phenomenography observation attempts to explain the five decision steps of students to respond in Meta-cognitive Learning in Free Online Groups (MetaL-FrOG) discussion. It presents a part of a research project by the name of Triarchy Perspective on Meta-cognitive Learning in Free Online Groups. The research setting was online learner community on the platform of Free Online Group web intended for post-graduate students enrolled for the paper Psychology of Learning in Faculty of Education, University Malaya, Malaysia. Preliminary study revealed three factors contributed to MetaL-FrOG success: Motivation, Cognitive Resources and Pro-learning Behaviors. This paper only presents a part of the findings under the Pro-Learning Behaviors Sub-theory. We found striking similarities between the model proposed by Latane & Darley (1971), Five Essential Steps to a Pro-social Response in an Emergency, and our research subject. The model which explains the course of a pro-social decision was borrowed and modified as surrogate theory to explain the online discussion response of the students. The insights help educators to better understand what holds students back from fruitful online peer diologic discussion.

Keywords

Social Learning, Online Collaborative Learning, Community Of Leaning (Cop)

References

• Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Ed.) (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker. & D. Suthers (Ed.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
• Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students‘ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Ed.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 211-269). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Bianco, M. B., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2002). Exploring qualitative methodologies in online learning environments. The quarterly review of Distance Education, Vol 3(3), 2002, 251-260
• Borg, W. R., & Gall M. D. (1983). Chapter 12. The methods and tools of observational research. In Educational Research: An introduction (4th Edition). Longman: New York.
• Bowers, C. A. (1999). The paradox of technology: What‘s gained and lost? Thought and Action, 14, 49-57
• Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic framework for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review (2007) 19, 343-374.
• Clift, R. T., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. (2001). Technologies in contexts: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 33-50.
• Conrad, D. (2002). Inhibition, Integrity and etiquette among online learners: The art of niceness. Distance Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2002, 197-212.
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication
• Dahlan, Z., & Hussin, F. H. (2005). Inculcating Generic Skills Among Students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia City Campus through Technology Based Osmosis Learning. Proceedings of the 2005 Regional Conference on Engineering Education December 12-13, 2005, Johor, Malaysia.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
• Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life circle completed. New York: Norton.
• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
• Glaser B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press.
• Glasersfeld, E. V. (1987). The Construction of Knowledge. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.
• Hedrick, W. B., McGee, P., & Mittag, K. (2000). Pre-service teacher learning through one- on-one tutoring: Reporting perceptions through e-mail. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), January 2000, 47-63.
• Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australia journal of Educational Technology, 19 (1), 59-71. Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K.
• Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.393-402).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
• Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (1), 27-37.
• Hussin, F. H. & Dahlan, Z. (2005). Alternative Framework for On-Job Immersion Action Research: Case Studies in Technology Based Osmosis Learning. Proceedings Regional Conference on Engineering Education December 12-13. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.
• Hussin, F. H. (2004). The osmosis project. Unpublished project paper submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of Masters in Instructional Technology. University of Malaya: Kuala Lumpur
• Hussin, F. H. (2005). The Osmosis Project a.k.a. Instructional Architecture: Case Studies Exploring an Alternative Framework for ICT-Based In-Situ Learning. Seminar in Instructional Technology Research, University of Malaya.
• Hussin, F. H., Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2005). Coaching Meta-cognition: A comparative study of quantitative & qualitative longitudinal action research case studies. Conference proceedings from Diversity for Excellence: Engaged Pedagogies 29-31 May 2006, Singapore
• Hussin, F. H. (2006). ASK4HeLP: Acquisition of Skills and Knowledge for Humanistic e- Learning Protocols. Invention & Innovation Malaysia Technology Expo (MTE 2006) at Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur.
• Hussin, F. H. & Salleh, U. K. (2006). LeaP-FrOG: Learning Protocols for Free Online Group webs. Research presented at Invention & Innovation Expo 2006 University Malaya.
• Irlbecka, S., Kaysa, E., Jonesb, D. & Simsa, R. (2006). The Phoenix Rising: Emergent models of instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), August 2006, 171-185.
• Joiner, R. & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861-971.
• Johnson, S. D. & Aragon, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions For Adult And Continuing Education, no. 100, Winter 2003, 31-43.
• Ke, F. F. & Carr-Chellman, A. (2006). Solitary learner in online collaborative learning: A disappointing experience? The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 7(3), 2006, 249-265
• Kim, M. C. & Hannafin, M. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1-10.
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V. & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
• Latane, B. & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn‘t he help?
• New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.
• Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
• Lim, C. P. (2004). Engaging learners in online learning environments. TechTrends, 48(4), 16-23.
• Mann, S. J. (2005). Alienation in the learning environment: A failure of community? Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), February 2005, 43-55.
• Mann, S. J. (2001). Alternative perspectives on student learning: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 7–19.
• Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivations and personality (2nd Ed). New York: Harper & Row.
• Marohaini Yusoff (Ed) (2001a). Penyelidikan kualitatif: Pengalaman kerja lapangan kajian. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit University Malaya.
• Marohaini Yusoff (2001b). Pertimbangan kritikal dalam pelaksanaan kajian kes secara kualitatif dlm Marohaini Yusoff (Ed), Penyelidikan kualitatif: Pengalaman kerja lapangan kajian (pp. 35-60). Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit University Malaya.
• Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127-153.
• McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centered approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 571-582.
• McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149- 162.
• Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. California: Josey-Bass Inc.
• Michalinos, Z. & Charalambos, V. (2007). Listening for silence in text-based, online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1), May 2007, 5-24.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Mishra, S. (2002). A design framework for online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 493-496.
• Ng, S. F. & Hussin, F. (2008). What engage students in Metal-Frog? A triarchy perspective on meta-cognitive learning in free online groups. I-manager‘s Journal on Educational Psychology Vol. 2(1), pp. 20-38
• Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. Online publication: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_1/noble
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
• Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education, 46(4), 349-370.
• Sheard, J. & Lynch, J. (2003). Accommodating learner diversity in web-based learning environments: Imperatives for future developments. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 16(4), 243-260.
• Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview: New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Stein, D. S. Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C. & Wheaton, J. E. (2005). Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105-118.
• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
• Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
• Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J. D. & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers‘ will to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 408-423.
• Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Ed.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer.
• Veerman, A. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Ed.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
• Waldeck, J., Kearney, P. & Plax, T. (2001). Teacher e-mail message strategies and students' willingness to communicate online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(1), 54-70.
• Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A review of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 7(4), 399-411.
• Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
• Williams, R. M. (1970). American Society: A sociological Interpretation (3rd ed.). New York: Knopf.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1987). On the ethnographic intent. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler, (Ed.). Interpretive ethnography of education at home and abroad (pp. 37-57). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
• Woody, T. (1999). Academics rebel against an online future. Retrieved November 28,
• , from Cable News Network,
• http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9806/15/academics.idg/ index.html