In order to distinguish and interpret the actions that subjects display during their CING activities, the above processes (except for semantic processing of information) must be related to observable learner behavior. To assess learners’ completion of the first step in the system, adequate specification of the information goal, I observed their use of pages. The set of pages visited can indicate learners’ level of specification during their information search in the CING. For example, vague specification would manifest in visiting pages only partially related to the learning topic, while focused specification would lead to visiting pages directly related to the learning task topic. A majority of irrelevant pages visited can hint at learners’ mis-assessment of the information goal (learning task/goal). I also included questions in the qualitative interviews (questions A7, A8, and B3a, see “Theories of autonomous learning” section) for a learner-focused and individual investigation of this step. My aim was to reveal the strategy of goal specification that learners use and on which they base their choice of pages.
The second step, information search, is related to learners’ understanding of the hypertext node structure, which I investigated by means of question 13 in the demographic questionnaire (see Appendix C2). Here learners were asked to relate a list of CING link titles to the learning task topics (simple past and present perfect). I also measured the time spent on navigation in the tool. Extensive navigation time could suggest learner disorientation within the HT structure and the failure to find task-relevant information pages. If this is related to the learners’ comprehension of the navigational link titles and page titles a correlation between a learner’s title knowledge and his navigation time will confirm this relation. The study also includes the frequency and duration of visits to the introductory page (see Appendix N), as this page can be used as a navigation aid if learners experience problems in their information search.
The third step in the framework, assessment of found information, entails the investigation of learners’ ability to assess the relevance of visited material to their learning task. The more irrelevant pages are involved in a learner’s CING visit, the less likely it is that the learner was capable of correctly assessing the relevance of the found information to the learning goal. This could also be an indication of learners’ lack of information (learning) goal specification (process 3). In addition to the number of visits, time spent on a page can also give an indication of whether learners correctly assess the relevance of the page to their learning goal. Navigation in an unfamiliar environment naturally leads to some goal- unspecific movement to pages one did not want to go to in the first place, but the recognition of their irrelevance to the learning (navigation) goal should quickly lead to a change of course to other, more relevant material. Thus, if learners stay on irrelevant pages for a longer period of time or visit relevant pages only briefly, this could indicate a possible impairment of their ability to assess the relevance of these pages for learning.
The model below (Figure 24) integrates learners’ actual CING actions and learner characteristics (e.g., knowledge of topic titles) into a system of processes involved in information specification.
Figure 23: Information Specification process (Schnotz & Zink, 1997, pp. 97-8)
This model allows for a rigorous examination of the subjects’ performance as it relates learners’ actions to their learning processes and thus reveals the possible shortcomings of the tool for learners.
It must be noted that this model does not include a learning task, as this aspect was varied by Schnotz and Zink among the subject groups they studied. In my study, the learning task was provided to the learners in advance. Nevertheless, they were always required to develop individual learning goals for their work in the CING (related to their existing knowledge gaps and learning strategies).
Preliminary Summary
The above discussion of HT and learning clearly shows the need for learners’ active involvement in the learning process with a hypertext. This is particular relevant to the CING, a “self-instruction tool” for learning and studying English grammar. In the early days of HT,
many researchers expected hypertext structures to support “self-directed and problem-oriented learning” (translated by the author; Tergan, 1997, p. 241) merely on the basis of flexible and individualized information access. Subsequent research has shown that learner support might be required on a metacognitive level of learning (e.g., Schnotz, 1991; Bannert, 2003), as well as generally on the hypertext level (e.g., Gerdes, 1997), either in addition to self-regulated learning behavior or in order to trigger it.
Various aspects of learning have an effect on the usage of a hypertext, such as learners’ ability to set learning goals (even if usage is based on a given learning task), their subject knowledge, and their experience with hypertext learning (or usage) which can be enhanced by support measures in the HT (e.g., Gerdes, 1997). Although this study does not make concrete recommendations for the further development of the CING given the unlikelihood of their implementation, it does consider what requirements the tool and the user have to fulfill in order for learning to be successful.
The study subjects were expected to have had no experience with the CING, but an intermediate knowledge of English grammar, specifically of the simple past and the present perfect. The subjects did not have extensive experience with autonomous English language learning or complex hypertext-based learning tasks. The study assesses the difficulties resulting from this learner background (knowledge) and the minimal hypertext support the CING provides to learners along with the complete lack of metacognitive learning support. I also make suggestions based on Schnotz and Zink’s (1997) model of information specification. For instance, learners’ specification of a learning task is necessary for a successful learning experience with the CING. This skill, however, cannot simply be imposed on the learner by the CING or a learning task, but has to be autonomously integrated into the learning process by the learner or an instructor, if available.
3.4 Theories of autonomous learning
In regard to learning with hypertext materials, many researchers (see “Theories of learning with hypertext” section) have stressed the need for self-guided and problem-oriented learning (e.g., Tergan, 1997) that entails successful self-regulation and learning-goal orientation (Rouet, 1992; Jonassen, 1993; Jacobsen et al., 1995). If this is not given, learners tend to apply inadequate strategies and regulate their learning process insufficiently (Rouet, Levonen, Dillon, & Spiro, 1996; Lawless & Brown, 1997; Brenstein & Schellhas, 1998), while showing
minimal learning progress due to their inefficient use of the interactive web-based material (see McKnight, Dillon, & Richardson, 1993; Foltz, 1996; Unz, 2000). To investigate autonomous learning a definition of the same is required.
There are a variety of definitions of the concept of autonomous learning. Holec (1979), for instance, in his overview of autonomy in learning for the Council of Europe, describes an autonomous learner as “capable of determining objectives, defining contents and progressions, selecting methods and techniques to be used” as well as of “monitoring and evaluating what has been learned” (Holec, 1979, p. 3).
In general, definitions of autonomous learning usually include the following aspects (Pintrich, 2000, p. 452):
◦ learners are active participants in the learning process
◦ learners can potentially control, monitor, and regulate certain aspects of their own cognition, motivation, and behavior
◦ learners can monitor their progress towards standards/goals and regulate cognition and behavior for goal attainment
Two terms generally used in the context of autonomous learning are self-instructed learning (self-instruction) and self-regulated learning (self-regulation). The following outlines my definition of learners’ unguided learning behavior (i.e., without teacher involvement) in the CING.