Evaluation of an Online-Environment to Prevent
Evaluation of an Online-Environment to Prevent Frustration and Procrastination in Literature-Based Inquiry Learning Julia Eberle, Tim Schönfeld, Selma Arukovic, and Nikol Rummel [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ruhr-Universität Bochum Abstract: In the Humanities, inquiry learning usually takes place in the form of mostly selfregulated inquiry when students work with literature to write term papers. We propose a CSCL environment to support this literature-based inquiry process aiming at preventing procrastination and fostering positive emotional attitudes and high quality learning outcomes. The online-environment includes scripting and prompted learning diaries for individual use to support shared writing processes. We will present results of a control group without and an experimental group with support. Keywords: inquiry learning, scaffolding, process support, reflection
Procrastination and frustration during inquiry learning
In higher education, students of Humanities and Social Sciences usually face inquiry learning when they work on literature-based term papers. Their inquiry learning process is quite often completely self-regulated and takes place outside of classrooms with only minimal guidance by lecturers, although we know that minimal guidance during inquiry learning is rarely effective (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Especially when students lack a profound understanding of the literature-based inquiry process and have only little knowledge of the learning content, the complex demands of self-regulated learning can overwhelm them and shift their focus away from relevant learning tasks. A major problem of literature-based inquiry learning, which has been studied in the context of academic writing, is procrastination (Klingsieck & Golombek, 2016). Learners tend to delay a task until there is no more time to correctly apply previously learnt strategies or to stop and reflect about the learning process. This leads not only to problems in knowledge transfer but also to motivational issues as learners experience the academic writing process as frustrating and develop aversive attitudes towards literature-based inquiry and academic writing. Aversive attitudes towards a learning task, in turn, have been shown to be major causes of further procrastination behavior (Steel, 2007). Hence, the aim of this project is to explore how students can effectively be supported in literature-based inquiry processes to prevent frustration and procrastination and to increase quality of academic writing.
Supporting learners through scripting and learning diaries
The main challenge in literature-based inquiry is the invisibility of the inquiry process for learners and instructors as it is mainly an internal process. A supportive environment that aims at facilitating collaborative literature-based inquiry, therefore, needs to focus on 1) making the literature-based inquiry process visible, and 2) supporting the externalization of learners’ internal inquiry processes. Scaffolds that provide an externalized schema of the steps of the inquiry-learning processes and guide learners through this process have extensively been studied in science inquiry processes (e.g. de Jong, 2006) but little in literature-based inquiry processes. We can assume that a scaffold that guides learners to perform certain inquiry tasks in a given order, also if they may come back to the steps later on again, may help learners to gain a beneficial schema for future self-regulated literature-based inquiry learning processes and academic writing. For the externalization of learners’ individual learning processes and their collaborative experiences during long-term literature-based inquiry, which usually takes several weeks of self-regulated work, a learning diary seems to be a good means of support. When implemented in learning diaries, cognitive and meta-cognitive prompts for stimulating reflection about the learning process have been shown to be beneficial (Berthold, Nückles & Renkl, 2007). These suppositions lead to the following research questions: RQ 1: To what extent does a scaffold that combines scripting and prompted learning diaries in an onlineenvironment, foster beneficial learning processes (reflection and decreased procrastination) during long-term collaborative literature-based inquiry processes? RQ 2: To what extent does a scaffold, that combines scripting and prompted learning diaries in an onlineenvironment, foster learning outcomes (positive emotions towards literature-based inquiry and quality of academic writing) of long-term collaborative literature-based inquiry processes?
CSCL 2017 Proceedings
877
© ISLS
Methods
We designed data collection as an experimental field study on different groups of students in a B.A. program on Educational Science. The students participated in an introductory course on research practices in Educational Science during their first semester and completed the course with a literature-based term paper. The baseline group, which did not receive specific support, was surveyed in winter term 2015/2016 (N = 26) and consists of 50% students who had just completed the introductory course, the other 50% were students in a later phase of the program and had just completed a literature-based term paper in a more advanced course. Data of the experimental group, which receives support as part of the introductory course, is currently collected in winter term 2016/2017 (approx. N = 40). In the baseline group, most students had written their term paper alone, while in the experimental group, students work in dyads and submit a joint term paper. Additionally, we closely observed and interviewed three students over several weeks in a case study, while they worked on a term paper in the supportive “Online Research Log” environment. The Online Research Log is a work-flow-management-system implemented in a moodle course and provides a structure for the different steps in the literature-based inquiry process. Each step consists of three core components: (1) Setting concrete sub-tasks for the step and dates, on which each sub-task is planned to be done, (2) conducting the step with all sub-tasks and uploading preliminary and final results, (3) reflecting about the process, focusing especially on what has been learnt, solved problems, achieved goals, and the collaboration process. The Online Research Log supports seven steps of the literature-based inquiry process: Finding a topic, identifying and understanding appropriate literature, designing an outline, writing the introduction, writing the main section, writing the conclusion, and eventually formatting the final document. Supplementary material and guidelines are available for each step. Students can, but do not have to follow the steps in the given order and are informed that it may be helpful to come back to an earlier step later on again. The Online Research Log directly supports individual learning processes, aiming at indirectly improving the dyad’s collaborative learning processes and the quality of the term paper. In both, control and experimental group, we ask the students to fill an online-questionnaire after writing their term paper. The questionnaire asks the learners about their procrastination behavior at different steps of the inquiry process and about their emotional attitudes towards future literature-based inquiry. We also ask for general procrastination behavior (trait) as a control variable. Each construct is measured on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum). Additionally, we will assess quality of academic writing and analyze process data of the experimental group collected in the Online-Research Log (e.g. reflection entries).
Preliminary findings and conclusion
The control group without support through the Online Research Log reports moderate procrastination behavior during their literature-based inquiry process. Formatting the document was related to the lowest procrastination behavior (Mall = 1.52; sd = 0.54), while finding a topic was associated with the highest procrastination behavior (Mall = 2.97; sd = 0.76); students from the introductory course showed higher values than students in more advanced courses. Emotional attitude towards future literature-based inquiry processes were rather on the aversive side for all students in the control group (M = 2.16; sd = 1.02). The students in the case study reported that the Online Research Log helped them during their literature-based inquiry process and especially reduced initial anxiety. We will present results and process data of the experimental group (with support of the Online-Research Log) at the conference, together with further findings from the control group and from the case study, and draw conclusion about the effectiveness of the online-environment.
References
Berthold, K., Nückles, M. & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning & Instruction, 17(5), 564-577. De Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research, 107-128. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Klingsieck, K. B. & Golombek, C. (2016). Prokrastination beim Schreiben von Texten im Studium. In A. HirschWeber & S. Scherer (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftliches Schreiben in Natur- und Technikwissenschaften (S. 195205). Wiesbaden: Springer. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential selfregulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
CSCL 2017 Proceedings
878
© ISLS
Procrastination and frustration during inquiry learning
In higher education, students of Humanities and Social Sciences usually face inquiry learning when they work on literature-based term papers. Their inquiry learning process is quite often completely self-regulated and takes place outside of classrooms with only minimal guidance by lecturers, although we know that minimal guidance during inquiry learning is rarely effective (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Especially when students lack a profound understanding of the literature-based inquiry process and have only little knowledge of the learning content, the complex demands of self-regulated learning can overwhelm them and shift their focus away from relevant learning tasks. A major problem of literature-based inquiry learning, which has been studied in the context of academic writing, is procrastination (Klingsieck & Golombek, 2016). Learners tend to delay a task until there is no more time to correctly apply previously learnt strategies or to stop and reflect about the learning process. This leads not only to problems in knowledge transfer but also to motivational issues as learners experience the academic writing process as frustrating and develop aversive attitudes towards literature-based inquiry and academic writing. Aversive attitudes towards a learning task, in turn, have been shown to be major causes of further procrastination behavior (Steel, 2007). Hence, the aim of this project is to explore how students can effectively be supported in literature-based inquiry processes to prevent frustration and procrastination and to increase quality of academic writing.
Supporting learners through scripting and learning diaries
The main challenge in literature-based inquiry is the invisibility of the inquiry process for learners and instructors as it is mainly an internal process. A supportive environment that aims at facilitating collaborative literature-based inquiry, therefore, needs to focus on 1) making the literature-based inquiry process visible, and 2) supporting the externalization of learners’ internal inquiry processes. Scaffolds that provide an externalized schema of the steps of the inquiry-learning processes and guide learners through this process have extensively been studied in science inquiry processes (e.g. de Jong, 2006) but little in literature-based inquiry processes. We can assume that a scaffold that guides learners to perform certain inquiry tasks in a given order, also if they may come back to the steps later on again, may help learners to gain a beneficial schema for future self-regulated literature-based inquiry learning processes and academic writing. For the externalization of learners’ individual learning processes and their collaborative experiences during long-term literature-based inquiry, which usually takes several weeks of self-regulated work, a learning diary seems to be a good means of support. When implemented in learning diaries, cognitive and meta-cognitive prompts for stimulating reflection about the learning process have been shown to be beneficial (Berthold, Nückles & Renkl, 2007). These suppositions lead to the following research questions: RQ 1: To what extent does a scaffold that combines scripting and prompted learning diaries in an onlineenvironment, foster beneficial learning processes (reflection and decreased procrastination) during long-term collaborative literature-based inquiry processes? RQ 2: To what extent does a scaffold, that combines scripting and prompted learning diaries in an onlineenvironment, foster learning outcomes (positive emotions towards literature-based inquiry and quality of academic writing) of long-term collaborative literature-based inquiry processes?
CSCL 2017 Proceedings
877
© ISLS
Methods
We designed data collection as an experimental field study on different groups of students in a B.A. program on Educational Science. The students participated in an introductory course on research practices in Educational Science during their first semester and completed the course with a literature-based term paper. The baseline group, which did not receive specific support, was surveyed in winter term 2015/2016 (N = 26) and consists of 50% students who had just completed the introductory course, the other 50% were students in a later phase of the program and had just completed a literature-based term paper in a more advanced course. Data of the experimental group, which receives support as part of the introductory course, is currently collected in winter term 2016/2017 (approx. N = 40). In the baseline group, most students had written their term paper alone, while in the experimental group, students work in dyads and submit a joint term paper. Additionally, we closely observed and interviewed three students over several weeks in a case study, while they worked on a term paper in the supportive “Online Research Log” environment. The Online Research Log is a work-flow-management-system implemented in a moodle course and provides a structure for the different steps in the literature-based inquiry process. Each step consists of three core components: (1) Setting concrete sub-tasks for the step and dates, on which each sub-task is planned to be done, (2) conducting the step with all sub-tasks and uploading preliminary and final results, (3) reflecting about the process, focusing especially on what has been learnt, solved problems, achieved goals, and the collaboration process. The Online Research Log supports seven steps of the literature-based inquiry process: Finding a topic, identifying and understanding appropriate literature, designing an outline, writing the introduction, writing the main section, writing the conclusion, and eventually formatting the final document. Supplementary material and guidelines are available for each step. Students can, but do not have to follow the steps in the given order and are informed that it may be helpful to come back to an earlier step later on again. The Online Research Log directly supports individual learning processes, aiming at indirectly improving the dyad’s collaborative learning processes and the quality of the term paper. In both, control and experimental group, we ask the students to fill an online-questionnaire after writing their term paper. The questionnaire asks the learners about their procrastination behavior at different steps of the inquiry process and about their emotional attitudes towards future literature-based inquiry. We also ask for general procrastination behavior (trait) as a control variable. Each construct is measured on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum). Additionally, we will assess quality of academic writing and analyze process data of the experimental group collected in the Online-Research Log (e.g. reflection entries).
Preliminary findings and conclusion
The control group without support through the Online Research Log reports moderate procrastination behavior during their literature-based inquiry process. Formatting the document was related to the lowest procrastination behavior (Mall = 1.52; sd = 0.54), while finding a topic was associated with the highest procrastination behavior (Mall = 2.97; sd = 0.76); students from the introductory course showed higher values than students in more advanced courses. Emotional attitude towards future literature-based inquiry processes were rather on the aversive side for all students in the control group (M = 2.16; sd = 1.02). The students in the case study reported that the Online Research Log helped them during their literature-based inquiry process and especially reduced initial anxiety. We will present results and process data of the experimental group (with support of the Online-Research Log) at the conference, together with further findings from the control group and from the case study, and draw conclusion about the effectiveness of the online-environment.
References
Berthold, K., Nückles, M. & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning & Instruction, 17(5), 564-577. De Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research, 107-128. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Klingsieck, K. B. & Golombek, C. (2016). Prokrastination beim Schreiben von Texten im Studium. In A. HirschWeber & S. Scherer (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftliches Schreiben in Natur- und Technikwissenschaften (S. 195205). Wiesbaden: Springer. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential selfregulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
CSCL 2017 Proceedings
878
© ISLS
