Influence of Online and Face-to-face Collaboration and Learning Style on Cognitive Load and Engagement in a Health Introductory Course

Although collaborative learning has received increasing attention, few studies have examined the differences between online and face-to-face (f2f) collaboration. This study utilized a two-factor experimental design to investigate the influences of collaboration mode (f2f versus online) and learning style on students' cognitive load and engagement. To assess the differences between online and f2f collaboration, cognitive load scale and engagement were collected from two different classes taking the same course at a university in Taiwan. The results show that online collaboration led to a higher cognitive load than that required for f2f collaboration because students have to learn how to use the online collaboration platform. However, online collaboration had higher engagement compared to that for f2f collaboration which represented student were more willing to engage in collaborative technologies. Students who preferred visual learning reported that the use of online collaboration led to less cognitive load and higher sustained attention than that experienced with verbal learning. No significant differences were found related to students' learning style in the f2f collaboration group.

[1]  D. Kolb.  Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[2]  A. Paivio.  Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[3]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[4]  A. Paivio.  Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[5]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[6]  M. Dwyer.  The Impact of Student Verbal/Visual Learning Style Preference on Implementing Groupware in the Classroom , 1998 .

[7]  P. Federico.  Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction , 2000 .

[8]  R. Mayer,et al.  Three Facets of Visual and Verbal Learners: Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preference. , 2003 .

[9]  Josianne Basque,et al.  The effect of collaborative knowledge modeling at a distance on performance and on learning , 2004 .

[10]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[11]  R. Felder,et al.  Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles* , 2005 .

[12]  K. Kiili.  Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model , 2005, Internet High. Educ..

[13]  Rupert Wegerif,et al.  A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills , 2005, CSCL.

[14]  Fang Liu,et al.  A Comparison of Learning Style Theories on the Suitability for elearning , 2005, Web Technologies, Applications, and Services.

[15]  Michelle Cook.  Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles , 2006 .

[16]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments , 2006 .

[17]  J. Hedberg.  The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning , 2007 .

[18]  Judith McNamara,et al.  Assessment of Collaborative Learning in Online Discussions , 2008 .

[19]  Tiffany A. Koszalka,et al.  Investigating the relationships among instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[20]  James D. Klein,et al.  Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration , 2008 .

[21]  R. Ferdig.  Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education , 2009 .

[22]  David M. Kennedy,et al.  MEDIAWIKI AND GOOGLE DOCS AS ONLINE COLLABORATION TOOLS FOR GROUP PROJECT CO-CONSTRUCTION , 2009 .

[23]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Evaluating and Managing Cognitive Load in Games , 2009 .

[24]  Hanna Järvenoja,et al.  Research on Motivation in Collaborative Learning: Moving Beyond the Cognitive–Situative Divide and Combining Individual and Social Processes , 2010 .

[25]  Elvira Popescu,et al.  Adaptation provisioning with respect to learning styles in a Web-based educational system: an experimental study , 2010, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[26]  Cindy Ann Dell,et al.  Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Class Formats , 2010 .

[27]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory: THEORY , 2010 .

[28]  Gwo-Jen Hwang,et al.  A knowledge acquisition approach to developing Mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowledge in a ubiquitous learning environment , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Nian-Shing Chen,et al.  Effects of teaching and learning styles on students' reflection levels for ubiquitous learning , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[30]  Christa S. C. Asterhan,et al.  Introducing synchronous e-discussion tools in co-located classrooms: A study on the experiences of 'active' and 'silent' secondary school students , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[31]  J. Guerra,et al.  COLLABORATIVE WRITING USING GOOGLE DOCS. INSIGHTS FROM WRITING PROJECTS IN INTERMEDIATE FRENCH CLASSES , 2011 .

[32]  Márta Turcsányi-Szabó,et al.  Towards a personalised, learning style based collaborative blended learning model with individual assessment , 2012, Informatics Educ..

[33]  Denise P. Domizi,et al.  Google Docs in an Out-of-Class Collaborative Writing Activity. , 2012 .

[34]  Kayvan Najarian,et al.  An Automated Optimal Engagement and Attention Detection System Using Electrocardiogram , 2012, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[35]  A. Bakker,et al.  The Measurement of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic study , 2012 .

[36]  Ruey-Shiang Shaw,et al.  A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[37]  T. Gog,et al.  Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[38]  Gwo-Jen Hwang,et al.  A Learning Style Perspective to Investigate the Necessity of Developing Adaptive Learning Systems , 2013, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[39]  Nikolaos K. Tselios,et al.  Online versus face-to-face collaboration in the context of a computer-supported modeling task , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[40]  S. Järvelä,et al.  Designing for learning: interest, motivation, and engagement , 2014 .

[41]  Yu-Chen Kuo,et al.  A Learning Style-based Grouping Collaborative Learning Approach to Improve EFL Students' Performance in English Courses , 2015, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[42]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment , 2015, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

[43]  M. Hannafin,et al.  THE USES (AND MISUSES) OF COLLABORATIVE DISTANCE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES Implications for the Debate on Transience in Technology , 2015 .

[44]  Jonna Malmberg,et al.  How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? , 2016 .

[45]  Victor Law,et al.  Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[46]  Siti Nurma Hanim Hadie,et al.  Assessing the validity of the cognitive load scale in a problem-based learning setting , 2016 .

[47]  L. Czerniewicz,et al.  Learning through engagement: MOOCs as an emergent form of provision , 2016 .

[48]  I-Shuo Chen,et al.  Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating role of learning engagement , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[49]  Carole-Rae Reed,et al.  Linking Essential Learning Outcomes and Interprofessional Collaborative Practice Competency in Health Science Undergraduates. , 2017 .