KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2011 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

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

Kinsley Ng SEN FA
Firuz Hussin HUSSIN
Sayfa
152–165
Yayın Tarihi
2011-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The insights help educators to better understand what holds students back from fruitful online peer diologic discussion.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:What prompts the students to respond in online dialogic discussion?
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri: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.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The insights help educators to better understand what holds students back from fruitful online peer diologic discussion.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Social Learning · Online Collaborative Learning · Community Of Leaning (Cop)

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

FA, K. N. S., HUSSIN, F. H. (2011). Students’ Decision Steps In Meta-Cognitive Learning In Free Online Groups (Metal-Frog): A Case Study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 152–165. https://ajindex.com/articles/140329

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  7. 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.
  8. Clift, R. T., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. (2001). Technologies in contexts: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 33-50.
  9. Conrad, D. (2002).
  10. Inhibition, Integrity and etiquette among online learners: The art of niceness. Distance Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2002, 197-212.
  11. 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,
  12. Johor, Malaysia. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
  13. Erikson, E. H.