|
|
|
| Research on the Learning Engagement of Information Search Users: Based on Kolb's Learning Style and Cognitive Flexibility Theory |
| Sun Xiaoning1, Ji Fuchun2, Liu Siqi3 |
1.School of Information, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030006
2.Library Room, Shanxi Institute of Energy, Taiyuan 030006
3.School of Information Resource Management, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The research scope of learning engagement, a popular topic in learning science, is increasingly growing. “Search as learning” generates a different understanding of interactive information retrieval as well as learning activities. Exploring the influencing factors of learning engagement can improve cognitive flexibility and knowledge transfer, develop the application and innovation ability of information search users, and provide a reference for optimizing the functional design of the information retrieval systems supporting learning objectives. In this study, the learning engagement of information search users was categorized according to three dimensions: behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement. The effects of learning style and cognitive flexibility on these three dimensions were explored via information retrieval experiment research. Data analysis and processing methods include search logs analysis, content analysis, self-reporting, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the chi-square test. The results show that learning style has a significant impact on the learning cognitive engagement of information search users but no significant impact on their learning behavior engagement and learning affective engagement; cognitive flexibility affects the learning behavior engagement as well as learning emotional engagement of information search users but has no significant impact on learning cognitive engagement. Finally, learning style and cognitive flexibility only influence the three dimensions of the learning engagement of information search users, but display no interactive effects with them.
|
|
Received: 08 October 2021
|
|
|
|
1 Vakkari P. Searching as learning: a systematization based on literature[J]. Journal of Information Science, 2016, 42(1): 7-18.
2 Marchionini G. Exploratory search: from finding to understanding[J]. Communications of the ACM, 2006, 49(4): 41-46.
3 Marchionini G. Search, sense making and learning: closing gaps[J]. Information and Learning Sciences, 2019, 120(1/2): 74-86.
4 Gwizdka J, Chen X S. Towards observable indicators of learning on search[C]// Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Search as Learning. CEUR-WS.org, 2016: Paper 19.
5 Gwizdka J, Hansen P, Hauff C, et al. Search as Learning (SAL) Workshop 2016[C]// Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2016: 1249-1250.
6 Ghosh S, Rath M, Shah C. Searching as learning: exploring search behavior and learning outcomes in learning-related tasks[C]// Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2018: 22-31.
7 Bhattacharya N, Gwizdka J. Measuring learning during search: differences in interactions, eye-gaze, and semantic similarity to expert knowledge[C]// Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2019: 63-71.
8 O’Brien H L, Kampen A, Cole A W, et al. The role of domain knowledge in search as learning[C]// Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2020: 313-317.
9 Rieh S Y, Gwizdka J, Freund L, et al. Searching as learning: novel measures for information interaction research[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 51(1): 1-4.
10 Ghosh S, Shah C. Information seeking in learning-oriented search[J]. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 54(1): 682-684.
11 Meyers E M. When search is (mis)learning: analyzing inference failures in student search tasks[J]. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 55(1): 357-366.
12 Twidale M, Rieh S Y. Information seeking at the intersection of search, learning, inquiry, and creativity: sharing stories to inform creative research[J]. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2019, 56(1): 582-585.
13 Collins-Thompson K, Hansen P, Hauff C. Search as learning[J]. Dagstuhl Reports, 2017, 7(2): 135-162.
14 Rieh S Y, Collins-Thompson K, Hansen P, et al. Towards searching as a learning process: a review of current perspectives and future directions[J]. Journal of Information Science, 2016, 42(1): 19-34.
15 Yu R, Gadiraju U, Holtz P, et al. Predicting user knowledge gain in informational search Sessions[C]// Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2018: 75-84.
16 Gadiraju U, Yu R, Dietze S, et al. Analyzing knowledge gain of users in informational search sessions on the web[C]// Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2018: 2-11.
17 Collins-Thompson K, Rieh S Y, Haynes C C, et al. Assessing learning outcomes in web search: a comparison of tasks and query strategies[C]// Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2016: 163-172.
18 Kuhlthau C C. Longitudinal case studies of the information search process of users in libraries[J]. Library & Information Science Research, 1988, 10(3): 257-304.
19 Kraiger K, Ford J K, Salas E. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78(2): 311-328.
20 Fredricks J A, Blumenfeld P C, Paris A H. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence[J]. Review of Educational Research, 2004, 74(1): 59-109.
21 Ben-Eliyahu A, Moore D, Dorph R, et al. Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts[J]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2018, 53: 87-105.
22 Kolb A Y, Kolb D A. The Kolb learning style inventory—Version 3.1: 2005 technical specifications[S]. Boston: Hay Resource Direct, 2005.
23 Ryan A M, Patrick H. The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school[J]. American Educational Research Journal, 2001, 38(2): 437-460.
24 Lane E S, Harris S E. Research and teaching: a new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes[J]. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2015, 44(6): 83-91.
25 Handelsman M M, Briggs W L, Sullivan N, et al. A measure of college student course engagement[J]. The Journal of Educational Research, 2005, 98(3): 184-192.
26 Pilotti M, Anderson S, Hardy P, et al. Factors related to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement in the online asynchronous classroom[J]. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2017, 29(1): 145-153.
27 Lee Y J, Jang B G, Conradi Smith K. A systematic review of reading engagement research: what do we mean, what do we know, and where do we need to go?[J]. Reading Psychology, 2021, 42(5): 540-576.
28 孙晓宁, 姚青. 信息搜索用户学习行为投入影响研究: 基于认知风格与自我效能[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2020, 43(10): 99-107.
29 Sesmiyanti. Student’s cognitive engagement in learning process[J]. Journal Polingua: Scientific Journal of Linguistics Literature and Education, 2016, 5(2): 48-51.
30 Zhu X H, Chen A, Ennis C, et al. Situational interest, cognitive engagement, and achievement in physical education[J]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2009, 34(3): 221-229.
31 Lam R, Muldner K. Manipulating cognitive engagement in preparation-to-collaborate tasks and the effects on learning[J]. Learning and Instruction, 2017, 52: 90-101.
32 Skinner E A, Belmont M J. Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1993, 85(4): 571-581.
33 Xu B, Chen N S, Chen G. Effects of teacher role on student engagement in WeChat-based online discussion learning[J]. Computers & Education, 2020, 157: 103956.
34 Taylor S S, Statler M. Material matters: increasing emotional engagement in learning[J]. Journal of Management Education, 2014, 38(4): 586-607.
35 Li Y B, Lerner R M. Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students[J]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013, 42(1): 20-32.
36 Lin C C, Tsai C C. Participatory learning through behavioral and cognitive engagements in an online collective information searching activity[J]. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2012, 7(4): 543-566.
37 Zhuang M D, Demartini G, Toms E G. Understanding engagement through search behaviour[C]// Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. New York: ACM Press, 2017: 1957-1966.
38 Keefe J W. School application of the learning style concept: student learning styles[M]. Reston: National Associations of Secondary School Principals, 1979.
39 Kolb D A. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development[M]. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984: 130-135.
40 Jung C G. Psychological types[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1921.
41 Dunn R, Cavanaugh D P, Eberle B M, et al. Hemispheric preference: the newest element of learning style[J]. The American Biology Teacher, 1982, 44(5): 291-294.
42 Honey P, Mumford A. The manual of learning styles[M]. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications, 1982.
43 Reid J M. The learning style preferences of ESL students[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1987, 21(1): 87-111.
44 Felder R M, Silverman L K. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education[J]. Engineering Education, 1988, 78(7): 674-681.
45 Herrmann N. The creative brain[J]. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1991, 25(4): 275-295.
46 Alonso C M. Estilos de aprendizaje: análisis y diagnóstico en estudiantes universitarios[D]. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1992.
47 Fleming N D. Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies[M]. Christchurch: Neil D. Flemming, 2001.
48 Michel A Y K. A pedagogic and didactic use of representations and learning styles for learner engagement: a conceptual framework for teacher mediation[J]. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 2018, 17(3): 82-95.
49 Almasri F. Simulations to teach science subjects: connections among students’ engagement, self-confidence, satisfaction, and learning styles[J]. Education and Information Technologies, 2022, 27(5): 7161-7181.
50 Ergün E, Ad?batmaz F B K. Exploring the predictive role of e-learning readiness and e-learning style on student engagement[J]. Open Praxis, 2020, 12(2): 175-189.
51 Rootes M J. Learning style and the information search process[C]// Proceedings of the Georgia International Conference on Information Literacy, 2009: Paper 38.
52 Huertas A, López O, Sanabria L. Influence of a metacognitive scaffolding for information search in B-learning courses on learning achievement and its relationship with cognitive and learning style[J]. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2017, 55(2): 147-171.
53 Gupta S, Garg D. Ontology based information retrieval for learning styles of autistic people[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Architecture and Grid Computing. Heidelberg: Springer, 2011: 293-298.
54 Mohd Shuib N L, Abdullah N, bin Ismail M H. The use of information retrieval tools: a study of computer science postgraduate students[C]// Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Science and Social Research. IEEE, 2010: 379-384.
55 Spiro R J, Jehng J C. Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter[M]// Cognition, Education, and Multimedia. New York: Routledge, 1990: 163-205.
56 Spiro R J, Feltovich P J, Jacobson M J, et al. Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains[M]// Constructivism in Education. New York: Routledge, 1995: 85-107.
57 Jonassen D H. Toward a design theory of problem solving[J]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2000, 48(4): 63-85.
58 Wang F H. On the relationships between behaviors and achievement in technology-mediated flipped classrooms: a two-phase online behavioral PLS-SEM model[J]. Computers & Education, 2019, 142: 103653.
59 Boticki I, Ak?ap?nar G, Ogata H. E-book user modelling through learning analytics: the case of learner engagement and reading sty-les[J]. Interactive Learning Environments, 2019, 27(5-6): 754-765.
60 Gregory A, Allen J P, Mikami A Y, et al. Effects of a professional development program on behavioral engagement of students in middle and high school[J]. Psychology in the Schools, 2014, 51(2): 143-163.
61 Subramaniam S R, Muniandy B. The effect of flipped classroom on students’ engagement[J]. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2019, 24: 355-372.
62 袁红, 黄燕. 查询式搜索与探索式搜索行为比较研究——以健康信息为例[J]. 现代情报, 2019, 39(5): 48-56.
63 Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology[M]. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, 2004.
64 Greene B A, Miller R B. Influences on achievement: goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement[J]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1996, 21(2): 181-192.
65 Robinson M D, Clore G L. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 2002, 128(6): 934-960.
66 胡敏. 在线学习中学生参与度模型及应用研究[D]. 武汉: 华中师范大学, 2015.
67 Ekman P, Friesen W V, Ellsworth P. Emotion in the human face: guidelines for research and an integration of findings[M]. New York: Pergamon Press, 1972. |
|
|
|
