Towards Self-Regulation and Social Navigation

1

Towards self-regulation and social navigation

in virtual learning spaces

Niemi,Hannele & Launonen, Anna & Raehalme, Outi

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,

Lisbon September 11-14 2002.

Contact addresses:

Hannele Niemi, University of Helsinki.

Anna Launonen , University of Helsinki,

Outi Raehalme, University of Tampere,

ECER-2002: Session 8: Network 6 Friday 13.00-14.30 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Room 17 Chair: John Butcher (The Open University, UK Discussant: John Butcher (The

Open University, UK

Abstract

Empowering learners in virtual environments necessitates a unique form of collaboration and human interaction. Though direct human interaction is deprived in a virtual environment, we have many ways to enrich the learning processes by attending to various humanistic components associated with successful group interaction. This article introduces a new tool for assessing social interaction and collaborative processes in Web-based learning environments of higher education. The IQ TEAM research group has identified critical aspects of on-line learning in group processes and designed Webb-based tools for assessing these qualities. The social behavior of on-line groups includes atmosphere, goal orientation and commitment, innovation, benefits of collaborative work, synergy of group members' differences, and role of the tutor. The group members' roles and interdependence of the group are also assessed. These qualities provide a basis for self- evaluation of one’s participation in virtual learning groups. Moreover, the research team suggests a specific approach to ensure high levels of support for all group members. While instructors and group members are connected interactively they may utilize the tutoring sets which are intended to develop their collaborative work. The new tool for assessing and supporting group processes in Webb is called “IQ TEAM.”

Towards self-regulation

Self-regulation, self-determination and self-efficacy are important psychological processes that lead toward empowerment and self-efficacy (Fetterman 2001, 12). These concepts are based on the social cognitive view of motivation and cognition.

There is evidence that self-regulated learning consists of sub processes: forethought, performance or volitional control and self-reflection (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2000, 16). Forethought consists of cognitive and motivational orientations. During a task students can monitor and control their learning if they have metacognitive awareness and they have learned to self-regulate by using cognitive and motivational management strategies and they also have capacity to manage external resources (e.g. time, social interaction and help seeking etc). Self-regulated learning also requires reflective processes that permit a learner to assess his/her own acts and achievements and make decisions regarding how to continue their learning process. The implications for structuring online learning experiences are multifold.

Web-based learning requires high self-regulatory skills. Without customary face-to-face interaction, students face a bewildering assortment of challenges associated with self-regulation. To stave off problems such as a considerable drop-out rate or poor learning, we must pay more attention to the critical learning and interaction abilities of our learners. But what exactly are the best approaches to be used online that truly assist them to gain self- awareness of their learning processes?

The research and development project known as IQ FORM, addresses this very question. In 2001 the IQ Form Research Team created an interactive web-based tool to assess and support learners toward strategic self-regulation in virtual universities and other higher education settings. The research is bolstered by Paul Pintrich’s Motivational Components of Forethought, Cognitive strategies and Learning Skills (Pintrich & Ruohotie 2000; Boekaerts & Pintrich &, Zeidner, 2000; Pintrich & Garcia 1991; Pintrich 1999; 1995.) This tool is currently available on the web (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/iqform/) and is in pilot use in the Finnish Virtual University. The project started the first phase of developing assessment tools to support learners in. Web-based instruction. The name “IQ FORM” refers to the idea that technological learning environments and platforms should be “intelligent.” Proper design of web-based instruction, in this regard, ought to take into account individual differences and support students to grow as learners. The IQ FORM consists of the three elements (Niemi 2002a; Niemi 2002b):

1. The interactive test bank with three questionnaire sets for students' self-evaluation

-Motivational components: Forethought, Cognitive Strategies, and Learning Skills;

1. Tutoring sets with hypertext structure for each sub component of the tests;

-Tutoring students towards self-regulation on-line,

-Additional guidelines for teachers, and

1. A learning diary for reflection of learners' experiences and to save their own and the learning group's earlier test profiles and reflections on them.

The second phase of the project is known as “IQ TEAM.” It aims to develop tools to assess and develop collaboration and social interaction in Web-based environments.

The Rationale for Assessing the Social Nature of Learning

Learning has increasingly been seen as embedded within a social context and framework. Social perspective theories emphasize the role of social and cultural contexts in cognition. They highlight the effects of the social framework on our beliefs, concepts and construction of knowledge. Social perspective theories have been variously associated with social constructivism, socio-cultural theory, socio-historical theory, and socio-cultural-historical psychology. Although social perspective theorists' views are diverse, each theorist posits that learning occurs through the mediation of social interaction. Rather than use the terms acquisition and representation, social perspective theorists view knowledge as construed by, and distributed among, individuals and groups as they interact with one another and with cultural artefacts, such as pictures, texts, discourse and gestures, Knowledge is not an individual possession but is socially shared and emerges from participation in social activities (Reynolds, et al 1996, 98; Cole, 1991). Empowering a learner in virtual environments also requires collaboration and human interaction. In a virtual environment comprehensive and direct human interaction is deprived, but we have many ways to enrich the learning processes through interactive systems through provision of a humanistic component.

Social atmosphere and the importance of collaborative culture has emerged in research projects around help-seeking in learning difficulties (e.g. Butler 1998; Newman 1998; Ryan et al. 1998). Accordingly, many learners do not actively seek help with their academic task when needed. Learners with low self-efficacy are more likely to believe that others will think that their need for help indicates that they lack ability, and, therefore they are less likely to seek help. In contrast, when students who have high self-efficacy encounter failure or difficulty, they do not worry to the same extent that others will attribute it to their lack of ability. The learners who do not feel capable of doing their work are the ones most likely to avoid asking for help. It is a question of culture in learning settings. Learning and working environments, characterized as caring, supportive and friendly, are likely to make learners feel more comfortable interacting with tutors and trainers and other learners. Positive relationships that encompass both academic and social concerns are likely to support learners’ efforts to seek help when it is needed.

To expand the discussion further, what are the fundamental aspects of knowledge creation? To address this question, at least in part, Ikujiro Nonaka (Nonaka & Konno 1998) introduces the Japanese concept of “ba”, which roughly translates into the English word “place”. Ba can be thought of as a shared space for emerging relationships. This space can be physical (e.g. an office, dispersed business space), virtual (e.g., e-mail, teleconference), mental (e.g. shared experiences, ideas, ideals) or any combination of them. What differentiates ba from ordinary human interaction is the concept of knowledge creation. Ba provides a platform for advancing individual and/or collective knowledge. Ba is a shared space that serves a foundation for knowledge creation. Common, shared space for knowledge creation is also a forum on which tacit, silent knowledge may be transformed in a visible and concrete way. Virtual learning environments may create spaces that unlock human potential to find its own individual richness as well as that of their learning communities.

European scenarios stress the social nature of learning, indicated by concepts such as co-operative learning, collaborative problem-solving, sharing and promoting interaction. Viewed this way, students' participatory skills are essential for learning in virtual university environments. Social perspective theories give importance to developing organizational cultures and places of co-operative knowledge creation. Learning is a social practice, along with its cognitive and emotional nature. Learning in the future demands teamwork and networking.

Theoretical Bases for IQ Team and Social Navigation

As is true for any new concept, social navigation has no common theoretical background. In practice, different methods suit different circumstances. It can be explored in the real world or in virtual space. Clearly there are many different views of social navigation. If social navigation is understood widely, it consists of creating social settings and places in virtual space, sociality of creating information, behavior in groups and also nature, location, evaluation, and use of information. (Munro, Höök & Benyon 1999, 2-3.)

The rationale of IQ TEAM is based firmly on beliefs regarding the social dimension of learning. With components such as a databank and tutoring sets, it creates a supportive environment for learners and helps them to grow towards empowerment in their learning. How can social navigation be best promoted? Dourish and Chalmers introduced the concept of social navigation in year 1994. They saw that social navigation as ”navigation towards a cluster of people or navigation because other people have looked at something.” (Munro, Höök & Benyon 1999, 2.) Dourish (1999) encourages us to see social navigation as a phenomenon of interaction. In collaborative situations the idea of social navigation consists of consciousness of others and what they are doing (Dourish 1999, 20). We have tried to keep these definitions in mind while we have created the various instruments and components for the IQ TEAM.

We realized that investigating roles of group members is one way to guide students to reflect on their behavior in groups. Of course roles in groups are dynamic. That is, a person does not always take the same role when working as a member of a group. Even in the same group different roles can be distributed to different persons at different times. There are many ways to define the roles in the group (eg. Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 2000).

Test construction for social processes

Sample

The pilot study was conducted in February 2002. The data was collected from four Finnish universities (Helsinki, Oulu, Tampere, and Joensuu) using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was consisted of four major aspects: 1) The Roles in a Group, 2) Social Interdependence, 3) Group process, and 4) Knowledge Creating Process. A total of 259 usable responses were obtained, 177 from female students and 82 from male students. The youngest respondents were 20 years old and the oldest was 55 years old. Most of respondent (54,8%) were 23-32 years old. The students came from four different disciplines (Humanities and Art, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Teacher education, and Technology and Science).

With regard to credit generation, 64 % of students had completed 21-100 study credits (160 study credits is usually required for a master’s degree). Most of the students (62,6%) said that they had good study motivation and that they (77,6%) were satisfied with their major. Only a few (10,2%) of students had received much tutorial guidance in learning skills and (13,1%) in group work skills.

Description of analysis

The students used a 5-point Likert scale in both of the tests. The scale was from 1 to 5 (does not describe me at all – describes me very well). Analysis consisted of the following statistical methods: 1) principal component analysis (PCA), 2) exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and 3) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The Test of Group Roles

Our aim was to operationalize group roles. One step in this process involved reducing items from five to three. In the web tests should be as short as possible. Another step was to test the homogeneity of each factor and this was accomplished using Cronbach´s alpha. The reliability analysis of factors revealed that all factors offer acceptable reliability (Alpha varies from . 71 to . 83) after the two poorest items has been deleted from every factor. Based on exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis of factors, the six-factor solution was selected for further examination of the Roles of a Group Scale (see Appendix 2). The factors were Rejection, Dominance, Encouragement, Conforming, Sharing, and Avoidance. The loadings and the alphas of these factors are presented in Table1.

Table 1. The Six-factor Solution of the Roles of Group Members Scale (Launonen 2002)

FactorCore itemsLoadingsAlpha

RejectionTO02. If someone disagrees with me, I feel hurt and rejected.. 78. 83

TO13. I am offended when others disagrees with me.. 85

TO46. When others disagrees, it means that they dislike me.. 70

DominanceDO01. When I disagree with other group members, I try to get. 83

them change their opinions.. 69

DO23. In a group work I try to overpower others with my facts

and reasoning.. 87

DO34. When there are different opinions in the group, I try to

convince others that I am right.. 81

EncouragingTU05. I support members that they would participate in to. 77

group work.. 88

TU27. I encourage members to work hard to achieve the goals.. 61

TU38. I facilitate members of the group to communicate with

each other.. 63

ConformingMU08. The members do not have to persuade me for a long time. 72

to take group´s opinion for my own. . 62

MU19. I easily reconcile to the common opinion of the group. . 70

MU52. I conform to the opinion of the group even if I have to

give up my own opinion.. 74

Sharing

know howTI28. I am open and candid for my entire group.. 53. 74

TI39. I share my information and opinions to promote the

success of all members and the group as a whole.. 71

TI50. I offer my resources to help the group.. 71

AvoidanceVE14. When others disagree with me, I generally keep my. 71

Ideas and opinions to myself.. 54

VE25. I do not tee my ideas and opinions because I am

afraid of others reactions.. 58

VE47. I keep my ideas, feelings, and reactions on my own

during the group discussion.. 68

TheRejection factor also demonstrated acceptable reliability (Alpha . 83) when two items (TO24, TO35) had been deleted. A rejected person feels hurt, if someone disagrees with his or her ideas and opinions. People tend to think they are disliked, or that others are angry with them, when they encounter disagreement.

The Dominance factor also tested for high reliability (Alpha .83) when two items (DO12, DO45) were deleted. A dominant person has a strong opinion of almost everything. A dominant person likes argumentation; when involved in an argument with others, s/he will become more and more certain that s/he is correct, and argue more and more strongly for his/her own point of view. S/he tries to overpower those who disagree.

As for the Encouraging factor, the reliability of this factor was good (Alpha .77) when two items (TU16 ,TU49) had been deleted. A person exhibiting this trait is one who gives power and belief that group efforts, and the contributions of the members, is worthwhile. S/he expresses his/her willingness to cooperate with other group members, encouraging all members to participate and pitch in to support others in difficult situations. S/he is always ready to help if someone needs his/her help.

The Conforming factor tested for good reliability (Alpha .72) when two items (MU30, MU41)were deleted. A conformist is a person who facilitates group work. Group members influence his/her opinions. S/he conforms easily to the group´s norms, rules and decisions. The ability to adapt to different situations reduces conflicts inside the group.

The factor Sharing information received acceptable reliability (Alpha .74) when two items (TI06, TI17)were deleted. Groups need this kind of persons who share their information, ideas and opinions. Sharing information promotes group work. A person exhibiting this trait is open and cooperative with the entire group. S/he wants to promote the success of all members and the group as a whole by sharing his/her resources for good of the group.

The Avoidance factor tested for an acceptable reliability level (Alpha .71) when two items (VE03, VE36) were deleted. This kind of person tries to avoid conflict situations and individuals who argue with him/her. S/he keeps his/her ideas and opinions to himself or herself when others disagree. In conflict situations s/he stays quiet. Of course, if one remains quiet in web-based courses such a person does not exist as a member of the group.

The Correlations of factors were examined next. A promax-rotation approach was called for as an explorative factor analysis. The Rejection factor and the Avoidance factor correlated positively strongly (r= .529), and the Encouraging factor and the Sharing information factor correlated positively strongly (r = . 605). Also the Avoidance factor and the Conforming factor correlated positively quite strongly (r= .401).

The Test of Social Interdependence

The basic premise of social interdependence theory is that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with one another. Social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by actions of the others (Deutsch 1949a, 1962). There are two types of social interdependence: cooperative and competitive. Individuality is absence in situations of social interdependence. (Johnson & Johnson 2000, 99-101.)

The most clear approach for testing Social Interdependence appeared when the principal axis factor was explored by promax-rotation. Before that could occur principal component analysis and reliability analysis of factors were conducted. Based on these analyses, the three-factor solution was selected for further examination of the Social Interdependence Scale (see Appendix 3). The loadings and the alphas of factors are presented in Table 2.