Metacognition and Approaches Regarding Internet-Based Learning in Taiwanese University Students

Journal title RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA
Author/s Min-Hsien Lee, Manuela Cantoia, Paola Iannello, Alessandro Antonietti, Jyh-Chong Liang, Chin-Chung Tsai
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/2
Language English Pages 21 P. 1-21 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/rip2022oa14576
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

While learning in Internet-based environments, students rely on metacognitive knowledge to organize, record, monitor, and review their learning path. In this experience, they may reveal either a “surface” or “deep” approach. In this study, 509 university students were administered the adapted versions of the ‘Metacognitive Knowledge regarding Internet-based Learning’ questionnaire and of the ‘Approaches to Internet-based Learning’ questionnaire. Positive correlations between metacognitive knowledge and approaches to Internet-based learning environments emerged: The metacognitive attitude was associated to a concerned and critical approach to learning whereas the negative attitude about Internet-based learning was associated to the surface approach. Students showed a global understanding of the peculiarities and opportunities of Internet-based learning environments rather than empathize a single cognitive or metacognitive feature.

  1. Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148.
  2. Antonietti, A., Colombo, B., & Lozotsev, Y. (2008). Undergraduates’ metacognitive knowledge about the psychological effects of different kinds of computer-supported instructional tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2172-2198.
  3. Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2004). Students’ conceptions about learning from multimedia. In H. Niegemann, R. Brunken, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 249-265). Munster-New York: Waxmann.
  4. Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about psychological aspects of learning through multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 267-282.
  5. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199-209.
  6. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76-94.
  7. Bekele, T. A., & Menchaca, M. P. (2008). Research on Internet-supported learning: A review. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 373.
  8. Bennett, L., & Scholes, R. (2001). Goals and attitudes related to technology use in a social studies method course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 373-385.
  9. Biggs, J. (1994). Approaches to learning: Nature and measurement of. In T. Husen, T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 319-322). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  10. Binali, T., Tsai, C.C., & Hsin-Yi Chang, H.Y. (2021). University students’ profiles of online learning and their relation to online metacognitive regulation and internet-specific epistemic justification. Computers & Education, 175, 104315.
  11. Carvalho, A. R., & Santos, C. (2022). Developing peer mentors’ collaborative and metacognitive skills with a technology-enhanced peer learning program. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100070.
  12. Celik, I., Muukkonen, H., & Dogan, S. (2021). A model for understanding new media literacy: Epistemological beliefs and social media use. Library & Information Science Research, 43(4), 101125.
  13. Chang, B. (2021). Incorporating Eastern and Western Learning Perspectives into a Western Learning Environment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 10(1), 6-40. -- Retrieved from https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jise/article/view/2695.
  14. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
  15. Chiu, Y.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and self-regulated learning in online academic information searching. Metacognition and Learning, 8, 235-260.
  16. Cho, M.-H., & Heron, M.L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The role of motivation, emotion, and use of learning strategies in studentsʼ learning experiences in a self-paced online mathematics course. Distance Education, 36(1), 80-99. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1019963
  17. Chuang, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2005). Preferences toward the constructivist Internet-based learning environments among high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 255-272.
  18. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A. M., & Ellis, M. (2011). High school studentsʼ experiences of learning through research on the Internet. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 503-515.
  19. Eltahir, M., Al-Qatawneh, S., Al-Ramahi, N., & Alsalhi, N. (2019). The Perspective of Students and Faculty Members on the Efficiency and
  20. Usability of E-Learning Courses at Ajman University: A Case Study. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 388-403.
  21. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
  22. Gao, T., & Lehman, J. D. (2003). The effects of different levels of interaction on the achievement and motivational perceptions of college students in a Webbased learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 367-386.
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
  24. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567-1579.
  25. Karatas, K., & Arpaci, I. (2021). The role of self-directed learning, metacognition, and 21st century skills predicting the readiness for online learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13 (3).
  26. Kember, D., Biggs, J., Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a
  27. revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-280.
  28. Lee, M.-H. (2016). Exploring the relationships between Taiwan university students’ perceived teacher authority toward Internet-based learning environments and their approaLeeches to Internet-based learning. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for Education (SETE’16), Roma: Italy.
  29. Lee, M.-H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92, 191-220.
  30. Lee, W.-C., Chiu, Y.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Exploring the structural relationships between high school students’ internet-specific epistemic beliefs and their utilization of online academic help seeking. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 391-400.
  31. Lee, S. W.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Students’ perception of collaboration, selfregulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 905-914.
  32. Macedo-Rouet, M., Potocki, A., Scharrer, L., Ros, C., Stadtler, M., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2019). How good is this page? Benefits and limits of prompting on adolescents’ evaluation of web information quality. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(3), 299-321.
  33. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
  34. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 67-90.
  35. Molin, F., Haelermans, C., Cabus, S., & Groot, W. (2020). The effect of feedback on metacognition-a randomized experiment using polling technology. Computers Education, 152, 103885.
  36. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 36, 203-231.
  37. Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: A meta-analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 179-212.
  38. Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233-241.
  39. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and selfregulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37.
  40. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers Education, 52, 543-553.
  41. Shen, K.-M., Lee, M.-H., Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Undergraduate students’ earth science learning: relationships among conceptions, approaches, and learning self-efficacy in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 1527-1547.
  42. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  43. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of internet-based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 91-111.
  44. Teng, M. F. (2021). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426.
  45. Thompson, B., & Daniel., L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197-208.
  46. Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: The use of the internet as anʼ epistemologicalʼ tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 525-536.
  47. Tsai, C.-C. (2005). Preferences toward Internet-based learning environments: High school students’ perspectives for science learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8, 203-213.
  48. Tsai, C.-C., & Chuang, S.-C. (2005). The correlation between epistemological beliefs and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 97-100.
  49. Tsao, Y.-C., Wu, C.-L., & Lee, M.-H. (2014). Development and validation of an instrument for exploring Taiwanese undergraduates’ approaches to Internetbased learning. International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE), Nara, Japan.
  50. Zhao, L. & Ye, C. (2020). Time and performance in online learning: Applying the theoretical perspective of metacognition. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 18(3), 435-455.
  51. Zhu, Y., Zhang, J.H., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2020). University students’ online learning attitudes and continuous intention to undertake online courses: a self-regulated learning perspective. Education Tech Research Dev, 68, 1485-1519.

Min-Hsien Lee, Manuela Cantoia, Paola Iannello, Alessandro Antonietti, Jyh-Chong Liang, Chin-Chung Tsai, Metacognition and Approaches Regarding Internet-Based Learning in Taiwanese University Students in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA" 2/2022, pp 1-21, DOI: 10.3280/rip2022oa14576