Click-drag Interactions
This study investigated the cognitive processes employed by 10 RATEP students as they completed a set of click- drag interactions as part of an IMM package specifically developed for the purposes of this research but whose content was founded on an IMM subject previously completed by the students (Henderson & Patching, 1995). To enable a focus on student cognitive processes, the study employed a hybrid paradigm of process-tracing research developed by [Marland et al. 1992] which involved a modified stimulated recall methodology to gain data on students' cognitive processes. This involved interviewing students as they interacted with the computer IMM courseware. Interviews were taped and transcribed for analysis.
The IMM material was designed to engage the students for approximately 30 minutes, and the requirement for the interaction was to place represented examples of cultural change into appropriate conceptual categories. As in the original subject, the items (concepts) to be grouped were chosen for their possible multiple construal of meaning. This element of ambiguity was introduced to facilitate thinking. The findings of this research were as follows: 1. Two broad categories of cognitions that relate to student action in completing click-drag interactions were
identified, namely proactive and reactive.
2. Student reporting of the proactive thinking reflects cognitions that occur before the placement of items in the appropriate conceptual category. Two types of proactive thought were indicated: (a) student thinking that related the current information to rule-bound data, namely course material by the way of previous examples or definitions and (b) thinking that related the information to self-generated conceptualisations which allowed them to elaborate in terms of justification, exemplification and deducing. The difference between these two pathways is that one is trying to fit the information to a prescribed definition or example while the other is trying to rationalise it in terms of the entire conceptualisation of categories based on student constructed schema.
3. Reactive cognitions were characterised by trial and error strategies whereby guessing appeared to be the modus operandi. In such instances action could be either purely for expediency, that is, non-considered placement of the items purely to allow progression onto the next stages of the IMM material, or for feedback which results in reflection by students. Trial and error action can then stimulate thinking processes. As a result, such action is reactive. This is substantially different from hypothesis or theory testing which inherently requires proactive thinking.
4. Transcript analysis resulted in a total of 33 cognitive processes being reported by students.
5. The majority (24) of actions taken by the students were categorised as considered; that is, they involved proactive thinking.
6. There were seven instances of reflective thinking as a reaction to trial and error action. Several of these instances were characterised by purposeful thinking patterns.
7. Two cognitive processes were related to guessing for expediency so that students could "skip over" the set click and drag activity and continue with the rest of the program.
The findings from this study suggest that click and drag interactions stimulate a range of important cognitive processes in students.
Concept Maps
In a study of the efficacy of IMM in teaching and learning concept mapping [Henderson, Patching & Putt 1994a], 21 RATEP students were asked to construct on paper their own map on the concept of culture. This was required after interacting with the IMM stimulus material which was a modified segment from Australian Minorities Today in World Perspective which they had completed studying two months previously. It comprised two examples of
concept maps. Firstly, the sequential build-up on screen of a concept map for cultural change involved the progressive differentiation of subordinate concepts and examples linked by unlabelled uni-directional relational arcs; and secondly, the students completed a click-and-drag concept map interaction on the same concept. The students' concept maps were examined to address two questions: (a) how effective was IMM as an instructional medium for teaching and learning concept mapping. The concept maps were examined to see to what extent the concept maps were informed by the actual IMM subject completed previously, the immediate IMM stimulus screens, or the students' own everyday prior experiences; and (b) what was the quality of student thinking. This was ascertained by analysing the relative complexities of the concept maps, specifically by looking at hierarchical progressive differentiation of lexical nodes and directionality, labelling, and integrative reconciliation of the relational arcs.
1. The variety of ways of using concept mapping as components of the IMM instructional package do in fact bring about students' learning of concept map construction as approximately 80% of the students showed strong evidence of being informed by the IMM subject or stimulus screens.
2. There is strong evidence to suggest that as a result of the IMM instructional package students were able to conceptualise at progressive differentiating levels and, then, exemplify where appropriate. Ten students produced lexical nodes to four subordinate levels while seven went beyond four levels. In the first three levels, most students produced concepts for their lexical nodes while at the lower subordinate levels, four through eight, students tended to provide examples of concepts. This is an important finding when viewed in the light of [McDonald's 1989] findings which found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders tend to focus on the example rather than the conceptual level.
3. The student-generated concept maps were not replicas of those modelled in the IMM courseware and stimulus materials. For instance, over half (53%) were able to go beyond the IMM concept mapping models to include simple (e.g., is, are, of) and/or complex (e.g., phrases, clauses, transitive verbs) labelling of the relational arcs. They also provided directionality to those labelled arcs thus making clear the students' conceptualisation.
4. The majority of the concept maps showed inter or cross level linkages (653 instances) but there were only 29 instances of intra-level or cross branch linkages provided by five of the 21 students. The IMM concept mapping courseware did not model these sorts of cross branch linkages that may explain why some students did not demonstrate a meaningful understanding of the horizontal relationship between groups of concepts.
IMM and metacognitive interactions
RATEP students' perceptions about the worthwhileness and transferability of metacognitive activities that occurred as a result of purposeful instructional design were investigated in a study by [Henderson, Patching & Putt 1994b]. Two design techniques were employed: (a) metacognitive interactive strategies of the question- answer-feedback format that were unavoidable as the students had to type in an answer before the IMM program would allow them to proceed, and (b) metacognitive prompts that were included in the discourse in the IMM subject but that students could elect to action mentally or ignore, that is, they were not required to type in an answer. The actual design required students to think about such things as: the image or thoughts that concepts brought to their mind; what the topic heading suggested the subsequent information might be concerned with; questions they might ask themselves about their level of understanding and what actions they would take; their thinking when they compared answers or ideas, critiqued content and theories, and worked out their answer to questions; and their thoughts while identifying the topic sentence and main ideas.
Nine students were surveyed using a structured questionnaire that focussed on eliciting information with respect to both metacognitive interactions and prompts. Questions attempted to elicit data for the following: (a) the evolution of their feelings, attitudes and motivation towards doing the metacognitive interactions and prompts, (b) whether students answered the interactions and prompts properly, that is, whether they engaged in metacognitive activity to produce a thoughtful considered answer, (c) whether there was transfer to dissimilar situations. The main findings of this study were as follows:
1. Initially the general reaction to the metacognitive interactions was negative. Students reported feeling confused, hesitant, frustrated and lacking in confidence. Their later positive reactions to interactions confirmed growing confidence in their ability to metacognise as well as realisation of the value of metacognition, even in cross-cultural situations.
2. All students reported positive predispositions towards metacognitive prompts, probably because students could avoid them or elect not to do them properly. One student summarised a common attitude: "I don't have to type anything...sometimes I thought I was cheating myself for not taking the time properly to respond sensibly."
3. Two students typed considered answers all of the time, four most of the time and three some of the time to the metacognitive interactions. The reasons given were to do with seeking, analysing, and evaluating their understanding.
4. The seven who did not do the interactions properly all the time explained that they were unsure of their own thinking particularly in relation to the concepts being explored, and that their first language confounded their thinking in an English as a second-third language situation with academic genres.
5. The pattern of initial reaction of metacognitive prompts was similar to that for interactions (in 1 above). 6. Six students said they did the metacognitive interactions properly all or most of the time during revision.
Their explanation is tied to their ways of studying with IMM courseware, as outlined above in the section,
Student Perception and Usage Patterns.. These students overviewed the whole topic and, when they felt they had a grasp of the concepts, the theoretical argument, and what was required of them, they revised in a manner that employed more metacognitive strategies.
7. Two students reported doing the metacognitive prompts properly during revision all the time, one reported most of the time, five students said they did them some of the time, and one, never.
8. Analysis revealed that the students were using metacognitive strategies in deciding when they believed redoing metacognitive prompts was necessary. For example, one student said: "If I am on a new topic...I sometimes revised back to the previous...metacognitive prompts to get my understanding right and flowing again". A few believed that, on referring to their notes, the "first attempt was usually correct".
9. Seven of the nine students reported positive transfer benefits of learning metacognitive strategies for other subjects. One student put this succinctly: "Had I not been introduced into that method [metacognitive interactions] it would have been very hard for me to understand what is being taught in the subjects. I have been able to work on other subjects and make meaning of them".
10. Eight recorded transfer to writing essays. "I became a confident writer. I knew what I needed to write and planned accordingly. My essay writing became clearer and more meaningful", was one student's response. 11. Some students commented on the positive effects of transfer to other aspects of the total RATEP course and
professional activities: "...Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people take things for granted and we more or less or never ask questions or seek reasons on why things happen. So, getting us to reason with things is certainly a step in the right direction for our intellectual and social growth".