Students’ patterns of accessing time in a text structure learning system: relationship to individual characteristics and learning performance

This study developed a learning system that allows teachers to edit assignments designed to teach students the text structure strategy through the use of four phases: instructing, modeling, practicing, and reflecting. A 7-week instructional experiment was conducted in which 84 12th-grade students learned the text structure strategy using this system. The results produced several significant findings. First, the students demonstrated very different patterns of accessing time when using this system, making it possible to classify them into 3 categories or clusters of users: “low-practice-low-reflection students”, who spent little time using the system; “low-practice-high-reflection students” who spent most of their time in the reflecting phase, during which they constructed graphic organizers and wrote summaries primarily by referring to the teacher’s examples; and “high-practice-low-reflection students” who spent most of their time in the practicing phase, during which they constructed graphic organizers and wrote summaries without referring to the teacher’s examples. Second, the students’ patterns of accessing time were related to their prior knowledge, Web experience, and learning performance. In particular, the “low-practice-low-reflection students” had the lowest learning performance. The “low-practice-high-reflection students” had a higher frequency of using PCs to access the Web, a lower level of prior knowledge, and higher gain scores than the “high-practice-low-reflection students”. These findings are discussed, and several suggestions are proposed for future research work.

[1]  G. M. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processing differences between frequent and infrequent Internet users , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  Liang-Yi Li,et al.  Accessing online learning material: Quantitative behavior patterns and their effects on motivation and learning performance , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[3]  D. Reutzel,et al.  Effects of Expository Text Structure Interventions on Comprehension: A Meta‐Analysis , 2017 .

[4]  Harm J. A. Biemans,et al.  Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web , 2000 .

[5]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Eighth graders' web searching strategies and outcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Jiawei Han,et al.  Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques , 2000 .

[7]  John Biggs,et al.  Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph. , 1987 .

[8]  Saroja Selvanathan,et al.  Learning Experience and Learning Effectiveness in Undergraduate Statistics: Modeling Performance in Traditional and Flexible Learning Environments , 2005 .

[9]  Dorian A. Canelas,et al.  Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Xiaohui Liu,et al.  The contribution of data mining to information science , 2004, J. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Bonnie J. F. Meyer,et al.  Web-Based Tutoring of the Structure Strategy With or Without Elaborated Feedback or Choice for Fifth- and Seventh-Grade Readers , 2010 .

[12]  Geraldine Clarebout,et al.  Regulation of tool-use within a blended course: Student differences and performance effects , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[13]  Arshad Abd Samad,et al.  How to Teach Expository Text Structure to Facilitate Reading Comprehension , 2011 .

[14]  Joke Voogt,et al.  Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum for emergent literacy , 2012 .

[15]  Pei-Lin Liu,et al.  Using eye tracking to understand learners' reading process through the concept-mapping learning strategy , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[16]  Andrew Thatcher,et al.  Web search strategies: The influence of Web experience and task type , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[17]  R. Yilmaz,et al.  An examination of undergraduates’ metacognitive strategies in pre-class asynchronous activity in a flipped classroom , 2017, Educational Technology Research and Development.

[18]  Melissa N. Ray,et al.  Individual differences in children’s knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature , 2011 .

[19]  Liang-Yi Li,et al.  The Effects of the E-Book System with the Reading Guidance and the Annotation Map on the Reading Performance of College Students , 2014, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[20]  Ting-Chia Hsu,et al.  Behavioural sequential analysis of using an instant response application to enhance peer interactions in a flipped classroom , 2018, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[21]  David J. Ayersman,et al.  Computer experience, learning style, and hypermedia navigation , 2000 .

[22]  Pei-Chun Shih,et al.  The effect of previous experience with information and communication technologies on performance in a Web-based learning program , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[23]  Jessica A. Brown,et al.  The Effects of Text Structure Instruction on Expository Reading Comprehension: A Meta-Analysis , 2016 .

[24]  Jennifer J. Richler,et al.  Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Penetrating the black box of time-on-task estimation , 2015, LAK.

[26]  Charles T. Meadow,et al.  Letter to the Editor: Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the world wide web , 2000 .

[27]  Abelardo Pardo,et al.  Data2U: scalable real time student feedback in active learning environments , 2016, LAK.

[28]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[29]  Gail E. Tompkins,et al.  Language Arts: Content and Teaching Strategies , 1991 .

[30]  LiKun,et al.  Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience , 2017 .

[31]  Daniel C. Moos,et al.  Self-regulated learning with hypermedia : The role of prior domain knowledge , 2008 .

[32]  Bonnie J. F. Meyer,et al.  Individualizing a web-based structure strategy intervention for fifth graders' comprehension of nonfiction. , 2011 .

[33]  Bonnie J. F. Meyer,et al.  Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension , 2012 .

[34]  Geraldine Clarebout,et al.  Tool-use in a blended undergraduate course: In Search of user profiles , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[35]  Abigail M. Nubla-Kung,et al.  An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. , 2014 .

[36]  Liang-Yi Li,et al.  Effect of Prior Knowledge on Attitudes, Behavior, and Learning Performance in Video Lecture Viewing , 2018, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[37]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Modelling and quantifying the behaviours of students in lecture capture environments , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[38]  Mario J. López,et al.  Instructional effectiveness of a computer-supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[39]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Note-taking within MetaTutor: interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning , 2014, Educational Technology Research and Development.

[40]  Robert D. Macredie,et al.  Hypermedia learning and prior knowledge: domain expertise vs. system expertise , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..