A Conceptual Framework for Online Authentic Learning to Support Knowledge Construction Among Undergraduates

  • Authors

    • Ung Hua Lau
    • Zaidatun Tasir
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.25.17544
  • Online Authentic Learning, Knowledge Construction, Knowledge Retention, Inferential Statistics

  • Abstract

    The paper presents a conceptual framework of students’ knowledge construction through online authentic learning environment in learning inferential statistics that enhance students’ performance and knowledge retention. The online learning environment is proposed based on situated learning theory and social learning theory as an approach for promoting knowledge construction of the students. An authentic task will serve as the precursor to encourage social interaction among students, teachers and more experienced experts in the process. The social interaction afforded by online learning environment facilitate students’ knowledge construction, leading to students’ performance and knowledge retention.

     

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Lockwood CA. An interpretive Business Statistics course encompassing diverse teaching and learning styles. Acad Educ Leadersh J. 2007;11(1):11–24.

      [2] Mocko M. Selecting technology to promote learning in an online introductory statistics course. Teach Learn Stat Int Perspect. 2013;7(2):215–25.

      [3] Mills J. A conceptual framework for teaching statistics from a distance. J Eff Teach. 2015;15(1):59–68.

      [4] Cobb G. Mere renovation is too little too late: We need to rethink our undergraduate curriculum from the ground up. Am Stat [Internet]. 2015;69(4):266–82. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05346%5Cnhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2015.1093029

      [5] Fawcett L. The CASE Project : Evaluation of Case-Based Approaches to Learning and Teaching in Statistics Service Courses The CASE Project : Evaluation of Case-Based Approaches to Learning and Teaching in Statistics Service Courses. J Stat Educ [Internet]. 2017;25(2):79–89. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2017.1341286

      [6] Shaltayev DS, Hodges H, Hasbrouck RB. VISA: Reducing technological impact on student learning in an introductory statistics course. Technol Innov Stat Educ [Internet]. 2010;26(4):12. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/Buffer zones and their management policies and best practices.pdf

      [7] Verhoeven PS. Engaging students in statistics education: Situated learning in statistics projects. Proc 59th ISI World Stat Congr. 2013;429–34.

      [8] Boyle EA, Macarthur EW, Connolly TM, Hainey T, Manea M, Kärki A, et al. A narrative literature review of games, animations and simulations to teach research methods and statistics. Comput Educ [Internet]. 2014;74:1–14. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.004

      [9] Au Yong HN, Yeoh GG. Use of social media to enhance personal learning environment in learning of statistics. Proc Int Conf E-Commerce. 2010;97–103.

      [10] Liu TC. Developing simulation-based computer assisted learning to correct students’ statistical misconceptions based on cognitive conflict theory, using “correlation†as an example. Educ Technol Soc. 2010;13(2):180–92.

      [11] Hoekstra R, Morey RD, Rouder JN, Wagenmakers E-J. Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychon Bull Rev [Internet]. 2014;21(5):1157–64. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3

      [12] Tishkovskaya S, Lancaster G. Statistical education in the 21st century: A review of challenges, teaching innovations and strategies for reform. J Stat Educ [Internet]. 2012;20(2):1–56. Available from: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/60016/

      [13] Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism: Connecting “yesterday’s†theories to today’s contexts. Perform Improv Q [Internet]. 2013;26(2):65–71. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/218524680?accountid=14744%5Cnhttp://fama.us.es/search*spi/i?SEARCH=08985952%5Cnhttp://pibserver.us.es/gtb/usuario_acceso.php?centro=$USEG&centro=$USEG&d=1

      [14] Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press; 1991.

      [15] Catalano A. The effect of a situated learning environment in a distance education information literacy course. J Acad Librariansh [Internet]. 2015;41(5):653–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.008

      [16] Hung H, Yuen SC. Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teach High Educ. 2010;15(6):703–14.

      [17] Verhoeven PS. Taking statistics outside the classroom: Researching the community. In: IASE Satellite Conference in Malahide, Ireland [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://iase-web.org/documents/papers/sat2011/IASE2011Paper2.4Verhoeven.pdf

      [18] Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E, editors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1978.

      [19] Lasry N. Understanding authentic learning: A quasi-experimental test of learning paradigms [Internet]. McGill University; 2006. Available from: http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1499136841321~836

      [20] Herrington J, Standen P. Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. J Educ Multimed Hypermedia. 2000;9(3):195–205.

      [21] Herrington J, Reeves TC, Oliver R. A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge; 2010.

      [22] Grimshaw SD. A framework for infusing authentic data experiences within statistics courses. Am Stat [Internet]. 2015;69(4):307–14. Available from: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2015.1081106

      [23] Nolan D, Temple Lang D. Explorations in statistics research: An approach to expose undergraduates to authentic data analysis. Am Stat [Internet]. 2015;69(4):292–9. Available from: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2015.1073624#abstract

      [24] van Aalst J. Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Int J Comput Collab Learn. 2009;4(3):259–87.

      [25] Palincsar AS. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49:345–75.

      [26] Brown JS, Collis A, Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res. 1989;18(1):32–43.

      [27] Hutchins E. Cognition in the wild. MIT Press; 1995.

      [28] Lin CL, Hou HT, Tsai CC. Analyzing the social knowledge construction and online searching behavior of high school learners during a collaborative problem solving learning activity: a multi-dimensional behavioral pattern analysis. Asia-Pacific Educ Res. 2016;25(5–6):893–906.

      [29] Heo H, Lim KY, Kim Y. Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Comput Educ [Internet]. 2010;55(3):1383–92. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.012

      [30] Lucas M, Gunawardena C, Moreira A. Assessing social construction of knowledge online: A critique of the interaction analysis model. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2014;30:574–82. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.050

      [31] Pena-Shaff JB, Nicholls C. Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Comput Educ. 2004;42(3):243–65.

      [32] Gunawardena CN, Lowe CA, Anderson T. Analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. J Educ Comput Res. 1997;17(4):397–431.

      [33] Schellens T, Valcke M. Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Comput Human Behav. 2005;21(6):957–75.

      [34] Schrire S. Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Comput Educ. 2006;46(1):49–70.

      [35] Veerman A, Veldhuis-Diermanse E. Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In: Proceedings European Perspectives on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning [Internet]. 2001. p. 625–32. Available from: http://library.wur.nl/file/wurpubs/LUWPUBRD_00357798_A502_001.pdf

      [36] Sedrakyan G, Snoeck M, Poelmans S. Assessing the effectiveness of feedback enabled simulation in teaching conceptual modeling. Comput Educ [Internet]. 2014;78:367–82. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.014

      [37] Durairaj K, Umar IN. Students’ level of knowledge construction and pattern of social interaction in an online forum. Int J Soc Behav Educ Econ Bus Ind Eng. 2014;8(12):3783–8.

      [38] Koh JHL, Herring SC, Hew KF. Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. Internet High Educ [Internet]. 2010;13(4):284–91. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.003

      [39] Shukor NA, Tasir Z, Meijden H Van Der, Harun J. Exploring students’ knowledge construction strategies in computer-supported collaborative learning discussions using sequential analysis. Educ Technol Soc. 2014;17(4):216–28.

      [40] Gunawardena CN, Flor N V., Gómez D, Sánchez D. Analyzing social construction of knowledge online by employing interaction analysis, learning analytics, and social network analysis. Q Rev Distance Educ. 2016;17(3):35–60.

      [41] Broers NJ, Imbos T. Charting and manipulating propositions as methods to promote self-explanation in the study of statistics. Learn Instr. 2005;15(6):517–38.

      [42] Stark R, Mandl H. Training in empirical research methods: Analysis of problems and intervention from a motivational perspective. Adv Psychol. 2000;131(C):165–83.

      [43] Arnold P, Pfannkuch M, Wild CJ, Regan M, Budgett S. Enhancing students’ inferential reasoning: From hands-on to “movies.†J Stat Educ. 2011;19(2):1–32.

      [44] Barrios M, González-Teruel A, Cosculluela A, Fornieles A, Turbany J. Structure and performance assessment in traditional face-to-face and blended learning statistics courses. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci [Internet]. 2014;141:1259–62. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814036416

      [45] Delaval M, Michinov N, Le Bohec O, Le Hénaff B. How can students’ academic performance in statistics be improved? Testing the influence of social and temporal-self comparison feedback in a web-based training environment. Interact Learn Environ [Internet]. 2015;4820(January 2016):1–13. Available from: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84945241977&partnerID=tZOtx3y1

      [46] Krause UM, Stark R, Mandl H. The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learn Instr [Internet]. 2009;19(2):158–70. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.003

      [47] González JA, Jover L, Cobo E, Muñoz P. A web-based learning tool improves student performance in statistics: A randomized masked trial. Comput Educ. 2010;55(2):704–13.

      [48] Everson MG, Garfield J. An innovative approach to teaching online statistics courses. Technol Innov Stat Educ. 2008;2(1).

      [49] Baglin J, Bedford A, Bulmer M. Students’ experiences and perceptions of using a virtual environment for project-based assessment in an online introductory statistics course. Technol Innov Stat Educ. 2013;26(1):217–20.

      [50] Craik FIM, Lockhart RS. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav. 1972;11(6):671–84.

      [51] Rumelhart DE, Mcclelland JL, Asanuma C, Crick FHC, Elman JL, Hinton GE, et al. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume 1: Foundations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 1986.

      [52] Ciccarelli SK, Meyer GE. Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006.

      [53] Atkinson RC, Shiflrin RM. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1968;2:89–195.

      [54] Guoqi Q. Teaching, learning and retention of statistical ideas in introductory statistics education. Eur J Pure Appl Math [Internet]. 2011;4(2):103–16. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=61338471&lang=cs&site=eds-live

      [55] Cooperstein SE, Kocevar-Weidinger E. Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning. Ref Serv Rev. 2004;32(3):141–8.

      [56] Berenson ML, Utts J, Kinard K a, Rumsey DJ, Jones A, Gaines LM. Assessing student retention of essential statistical ideas. Am Stat. 2008;62(1):54–61.

      [57] Kvam PH. The effect of active learning methods on student retention in engineering statistics. Am Stat [Internet]. 2000;54(2):136–40. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=3214941&site=ehost-live

      [58] Lovett M, Meyer O, Thille C. The open learning initiative: Measuring the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. J Interact Media Educ [Internet]. 2008;(1):1–16. Available from: http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/14

      [59] Herrington J, Oliver R. An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2000;48(3):23–48.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Hua Lau, U., & Tasir, Z. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for Online Authentic Learning to Support Knowledge Construction Among Undergraduates. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.25), 186-191. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.25.17544

    Received date: 2018-08-14

    Accepted date: 2018-08-14