**4. Results and discussion**

**The modeling procedure of the Learning Process in this study**

154 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

Derive a rough pattern of the knowledge-building

Correlate learning output variables and each stage

Derive a verified action model of the knowledge-

Conceptualize the knowledge-building action

Validate the conceptual model of a knowledge-

Produce the verified conceptual model of the

**Table 1.** Research procedure of this study.

of the knowledge-building process

procedure

building process

building process

knowledge-building process

process

Develop a treatment instructional program Interaction-based e-learning program

Analyze learning output variables Student achievement, satisfaction

Implement interview with learners Interview recording data with 10 learners

Implement the program and collect data 4 questionnaires and online message analysis

Make first coding of four questionnaires 17 steps of the knowledge-building procedure

↓ ↓

↓ ↓

↓ ↓ Make second coding of four questionnaires 10 main stages and some sub-steps of the knowledge-building procedure ↓ ↓

↓ ↓

↓ ↓

↓ ↓

↓ ↓ Analyze interview results to verify the model Decoding the recording, → contents analysis, → first

↓ ↓

↓ ↓

↓ ↓

↓ ↓

by 5 experts and 10 students

interaction-based e-learning

**Product**

Visualization of the knowledge-building procedure

process in consideration of learning output variables

categorization, → coding and second categorization

First visualization of an action model of the knowledge-building

Visualization the action model of the knowledge-building process

Visualization of the conceptualized knowledge-building process

Validation the conceptual model of a knowledge-building process

The verified conceptual model of a knowledge-building process in

#### **4.1. An observable action model**

To explore a knowledge-building process in interaction-based e-learning, we coded 56 students' perceived learning procedures in questionnaires and derived an average pattern of the students' knowledge-building process. The students' perceived learning procedure after first coding was composed of 17 stages as follows:


Among these items, activities receiving less than 10% frequency of use were removed after first coding, and the learning procedure was re-coded iteratively until an average main pattern of the process was found. Thus, #1, #12, and #17 items were removed, and other items were relocated to the basic default procedure of #6, #8, #13 cycle; studying web-based material, doing assignments, assignment submission. Finally, ten main stages and some sub-steps were induced. For main stages: #6, #8, #13 basic cycle (studying web-based material, doing assign‐ ments, assignment submission); #14, #15, #16 activity (checking the teacher's feedback, reflection, resubmission after revision); #4, #5, #10, #11 activity (posting messages on the free board, Q/A board, discussion board, reviewing peers' posting and teacher's feedback on it, posing questions and replies on the discussion board). Sub-steps that students do sometimes but are not that critical according to the frequency are #2, #3, #7, and #9 (reading notice, Q/A board, editing and printing web-text, searching other materials for reference). All stages were analyzed and correlated with learning output variables such as cognitive achievement testing or satisfaction queries. In addition, all messages on each web board were analyzed and categorized by characteristics of message content, SDU (Social Discussion Unit), PDU (Proce‐ dural Discussion Unit), and CDU (Contents Discussion Unit), following the classification of [12]. An observable action model of knowledge-building process, in which all stages were rearranged with a logical sequence, was finally derived as shown in Figure 2.

In Figure 2, subscript 1) represents a cognitive achievement factor and subscript 2) indicates a satisfaction factor. Subscript 3) shows features of messages, such as SDU (Social Discussion Unit), PDU (Procedural Discussion Unit), and CDU (Contents Discussion Unit), categorized by [12]. Subscript 4) represents the form of interaction, such as S-C (Student-Contents), S-T (Student-Teacher), S-S (Student-Student), categorized by [13].

In the student-contents interaction (S-C) circle, students come in contact with the web material and are then involved in the process of doing the assignments. While students process their assignments, they interact with other students. This kind of action leads to the student-student interaction (S-S) circle. Meanwhile, when students get feedback from their instructor after submitting their assignments, they check and reflect the teacher's feedback. These steps are for production of assignments. This kind of action is categorized as student-teacher interaction (S-T). Throughout this entire process, students read notices and information on the bulletin board concurrently.

In the student-student interaction (S-S) circle, students referred to peers' finished assignments, read messages on the discussion board, and post messages that are social, procedural, and academic in characteristic. Students were able to see other classmates' finished assignments because all students were supposed to post their assignments on an open discussion board for this research.

In the student-teacher interaction (S-T) circle, after submitting their assignments, students receive and review the teacher's feedback on their work. After reflection, some students revised their assignments and resubmitted them.

Regarding posting messages, the numbers of postings of each student were analyzed with achievement score by correlation analysis. Only CDU was significantly correlated to achieve‐ ment score by r=0.455(p<0.05, N=52), and to satisfaction score by r=0.407(p<0.01, N=52). As expected, posting SDUs or PDUs did not show significant correlation with cognitive achieve‐ ment.

Satisfaction level result measured by a modified satisfaction scale of [9] 's was correlated to each stage of the action model in Figure 2, and found significant correlations only with "check the teacher's feedback", "read the messages on the discussion board", and "post CDU"(p<0.05). With respect to the cognitive achievement factor, the students who checked the teacher's feedback showed significantly higher scores than the students who didn't check the teacher's feedback (Table 2). Table 3 shows that students reading messages on the board had higher scores in the final examination than students who did not read the messages.

A Knowledge-building Process in Interaction-based E-Learning http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61518 157

but are not that critical according to the frequency are #2, #3, #7, and #9 (reading notice, Q/A board, editing and printing web-text, searching other materials for reference). All stages were analyzed and correlated with learning output variables such as cognitive achievement testing or satisfaction queries. In addition, all messages on each web board were analyzed and categorized by characteristics of message content, SDU (Social Discussion Unit), PDU (Proce‐ dural Discussion Unit), and CDU (Contents Discussion Unit), following the classification of [12]. An observable action model of knowledge-building process, in which all stages were

In Figure 2, subscript 1) represents a cognitive achievement factor and subscript 2) indicates a satisfaction factor. Subscript 3) shows features of messages, such as SDU (Social Discussion Unit), PDU (Procedural Discussion Unit), and CDU (Contents Discussion Unit), categorized by [12]. Subscript 4) represents the form of interaction, such as S-C (Student-Contents), S-T

In the student-contents interaction (S-C) circle, students come in contact with the web material and are then involved in the process of doing the assignments. While students process their assignments, they interact with other students. This kind of action leads to the student-student interaction (S-S) circle. Meanwhile, when students get feedback from their instructor after submitting their assignments, they check and reflect the teacher's feedback. These steps are for production of assignments. This kind of action is categorized as student-teacher interaction (S-T). Throughout this entire process, students read notices and information on the bulletin

In the student-student interaction (S-S) circle, students referred to peers' finished assignments, read messages on the discussion board, and post messages that are social, procedural, and academic in characteristic. Students were able to see other classmates' finished assignments because all students were supposed to post their assignments on an open discussion board for

In the student-teacher interaction (S-T) circle, after submitting their assignments, students receive and review the teacher's feedback on their work. After reflection, some students revised

Regarding posting messages, the numbers of postings of each student were analyzed with achievement score by correlation analysis. Only CDU was significantly correlated to achieve‐ ment score by r=0.455(p<0.05, N=52), and to satisfaction score by r=0.407(p<0.01, N=52). As expected, posting SDUs or PDUs did not show significant correlation with cognitive achieve‐

Satisfaction level result measured by a modified satisfaction scale of [9] 's was correlated to each stage of the action model in Figure 2, and found significant correlations only with "check the teacher's feedback", "read the messages on the discussion board", and "post CDU"(p<0.05). With respect to the cognitive achievement factor, the students who checked the teacher's feedback showed significantly higher scores than the students who didn't check the teacher's feedback (Table 2). Table 3 shows that students reading messages on the board had

higher scores in the final examination than students who did not read the messages.

rearranged with a logical sequence, was finally derived as shown in Figure 2.

(Student-Teacher), S-S (Student-Student), categorized by [13].

156 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

board concurrently.

this research.

ment.

their assignments and resubmitted them.

**Figure 2.** An observable action model of a knowledge-building process in interaction-based e-learning: 1) Cogni‐ tive achievement factor; 2) Satisfaction factor; 3) SDU(Social Discussion Unit), PDU(Procedural Discussion Unit), CDU(Contents Discussion Unit); 4) Interaction types (Students-Contents(S-C), Students-Students(S-S), Students-Teacher(S-T).


**Table 2.** t-test result: Whether checking the teacher's feedback is a critical achievement factor.


**Table 3.** t-test result: Whether checking the teacher's feedback is a critical achievement factor.

Reading messages on the discussion board, posting CDUs, and reviewing the teacher's feedback are figured as satisfaction factors by frequency analysis and correlation analysis (p<0.05). Unexpectedly, the student achievement factors are the same as satisfaction factors in this case, but this could not always happen in other cases. It needs further investigation to differentiate the influence of achievement and satisfaction.

#### **4.2. A conceptual model**

The observable action model is abstracted into a conceptual diagram (Figure 3) in consideration of previous research [4, 14]. In Figure 3, the bold solid arrows show a major knowledgebuilding process and the fine solid arrows show a back process or a minor process that did not occur all the time. The conceptual model of the knowledge-building process in interactionbased e-learning constitutes two phases: a minor individual learning phase and a major social knowledge-building phase. Even though social learning is a major part of the knowledgebuilding process in interaction-based e-learning, individual learning occurs almost concur‐ rently or alternately with social learning. Although the instructional program in this research was designed mainly for interactive learning, students experienced self-learning with brief material provided in the class to learn basic information for discussion preparation. So an individual learning cycle must be shown with the social knowledge-building cycle concur‐ rently. Explanations of each stage are described below.

**Figure 3.** A conceptual model of a knowledge-building process in interaction-based e-learning ( : from empirical evidence, : from previous literature, : from previous literature and empirical evidence; : major knowledgebuilding process, : minor knowledge-building process).

### *4.2.1. Initiation*

Reading messages on the discussion board, posting CDUs, and reviewing the teacher's feedback are figured as satisfaction factors by frequency analysis and correlation analysis (p<0.05). Unexpectedly, the student achievement factors are the same as satisfaction factors in this case, but this could not always happen in other cases. It needs further investigation to

The observable action model is abstracted into a conceptual diagram (Figure 3) in consideration of previous research [4, 14]. In Figure 3, the bold solid arrows show a major knowledgebuilding process and the fine solid arrows show a back process or a minor process that did not occur all the time. The conceptual model of the knowledge-building process in interactionbased e-learning constitutes two phases: a minor individual learning phase and a major social knowledge-building phase. Even though social learning is a major part of the knowledgebuilding process in interaction-based e-learning, individual learning occurs almost concur‐ rently or alternately with social learning. Although the instructional program in this research was designed mainly for interactive learning, students experienced self-learning with brief material provided in the class to learn basic information for discussion preparation. So an individual learning cycle must be shown with the social knowledge-building cycle concur‐

**Figure 3.** A conceptual model of a knowledge-building process in interaction-based e-learning ( : from empirical evidence, : from previous literature, : from previous literature and empirical evidence; : major knowledge-

differentiate the influence of achievement and satisfaction.

158 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

rently. Explanations of each stage are described below.

building process, : minor knowledge-building process).

**4.2. A conceptual model**

In the individual learning phase, the process begins with initiation. Initiation includes access and exploration of the program sites such as reading notices or announcements, clicking menu options, etc. But this activity is not a main learning process; rather it is a pre-activity before the learning process. Once students get used to navigating their way around the site, they usually skip this stage and go to the main learning process directly. So the initiation phase is located outside of the learning cycle.

#### *4.2.2. Contact with the learning material*

After initiation, learners come in contact with the learning material that includes the web-based instruction program, ongoing teacher's feedback, or other online/offline resources. The reason why we differentiated the stage of contact with the learning material from other stages such as internal process and understanding is because even though students come in contact with the web lecture, it doesn't mean that they are really engaged in learning. If students enter the web lecture and click each page of the web material, it is possible that they are just clicking through the program, which is far from genuine learning. So this stage of coming in contact with the learning material should be differentiated for articulation.

#### *4.2.3. Internal process*

When learners digest the learning material, an internal process must take effect in their brain, which is not observable but explained by many learning theories. This is for intra-personal communication represented by thought. What's going on in this internal process will not be discussed here because it is beyond this study's scope, but it is obviously appropriate to put this step as one of the stages in the learning process model here. If students understand the contents well enough after the internal process, they arrive at an individual understanding. Otherwise, they return to the learning material and repeat this cycle until they understand the material.

#### *4.2.4. Individual understanding*

If a learner's cognitive conflicts are resolved through this internal process, students arrive at an individual understanding. Similar to Stahl's model [4], this is distinguished from personal comprehension by internalization. Although we guess that we understand something, we often find that we are unable to explain what we have learned immediately. That is because the knowledge is not fully internalized yet, though it may be slightly understood. Individual understanding, therefore, could be considered a lower level of comprehension. That is, knowledge is not internalized to a learner yet in the stage of individual understanding.

#### *4.2.5. Individual externalization*

In the e-learning course in this study, students post what they learned from the material after individual-understanding; this action is conceptualized as individual externalization in this research. Students also post messages following socialization or internalization on the knowledge-building cycle. That is, students express what they learned from social learning or individual learning. So this stage shows two facets: one is a summary of the individual learning phase and the other is the first step to the knowledge-building phase, which also follows the socialization or internalization process. The stage of individual externalization seems to be similar to making personal belief elicit to public statements in Stahl's model [4].

#### *4.2.6. Socialization*

Students participate in discussions by posting messages of what they learned through individual learning or just by socialization. In the knowledge-building phase, students begin to take part in the discussions by posting social messages (SDUs) or asking about procedure (PDUs); this non-academic activity is for their social affinity and rapport. This is conceptual‐ ized as socialization in this study. This does not always happen. Once students are socialized enough (SDU), they usually skip this stage and go straight to posting CDUs (individual externalization) after final personal comprehension of one thing. In this study, only 16% of the messages were SDUs. They are shown as fine solid arrows rather than bold arrows in order to represent a minor process. After socialization, students post content-related academic mes‐ sages (CDUs) on the discussion board, which is expressed as individual externalization, as mentioned above.

#### *4.2.7. Social reflection*

When several individuals' messages are posted on the web board, students argue and criticize others' opinions. That is called social reflection in this study. Stahl [4] presents this stage as critic and argument of other people's public statements and discussion of alternatives. Social reflection is a corresponding concept to individual reflection; while one is from inter-personal interaction and the other is from intra-personal interaction, both are basically similar activities in regard to learning in a precise and concrete manner.

#### *4.2.8. Shared understanding*

Through social reflection, students obtain consensus on a topic to arrive at shared under‐ standing. Shared understanding is distinguished from individual understanding. This stage implicates that meaning is constructed by social practice as [4]. Social constructivists assert that meaning is constructed by social interaction until people share a common understanding. Shared understanding is from interpersonal interaction, whereas individual understanding is from intra-personal interaction.

#### *4.2.9. Social externalization*

When one of the team members summarizes his/her cultural artifacts—product of discussion, summary of consensus like Stahl [4] mentioned—this activity is conceptualized as social externalization that is differentiated from individual externalization. While individual externalization consists of activities such as note-taking or summarizing of what students understand individually, social externalization consists of external expression of socially constructed and shared understanding. Usually one of the team members posts his/her summary or conclusion after discussion, while other team members watch and apply correc‐ tions if there is something incorrect or missing.

#### *4.2.10. Internalization*

knowledge-building cycle. That is, students express what they learned from social learning or individual learning. So this stage shows two facets: one is a summary of the individual learning phase and the other is the first step to the knowledge-building phase, which also follows the socialization or internalization process. The stage of individual externalization seems to be

Students participate in discussions by posting messages of what they learned through individual learning or just by socialization. In the knowledge-building phase, students begin to take part in the discussions by posting social messages (SDUs) or asking about procedure (PDUs); this non-academic activity is for their social affinity and rapport. This is conceptual‐ ized as socialization in this study. This does not always happen. Once students are socialized enough (SDU), they usually skip this stage and go straight to posting CDUs (individual externalization) after final personal comprehension of one thing. In this study, only 16% of the messages were SDUs. They are shown as fine solid arrows rather than bold arrows in order to represent a minor process. After socialization, students post content-related academic mes‐ sages (CDUs) on the discussion board, which is expressed as individual externalization, as

When several individuals' messages are posted on the web board, students argue and criticize others' opinions. That is called social reflection in this study. Stahl [4] presents this stage as critic and argument of other people's public statements and discussion of alternatives. Social reflection is a corresponding concept to individual reflection; while one is from inter-personal interaction and the other is from intra-personal interaction, both are basically similar activities

Through social reflection, students obtain consensus on a topic to arrive at shared under‐ standing. Shared understanding is distinguished from individual understanding. This stage implicates that meaning is constructed by social practice as [4]. Social constructivists assert that meaning is constructed by social interaction until people share a common understanding. Shared understanding is from interpersonal interaction, whereas individual understanding is

When one of the team members summarizes his/her cultural artifacts—product of discussion, summary of consensus like Stahl [4] mentioned—this activity is conceptualized as social externalization that is differentiated from individual externalization. While individual externalization consists of activities such as note-taking or summarizing of what students understand individually, social externalization consists of external expression of socially

similar to making personal belief elicit to public statements in Stahl's model [4].

160 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

*4.2.6. Socialization*

mentioned above.

*4.2.7. Social reflection*

*4.2.8. Shared understanding*

from intra-personal interaction.

*4.2.9. Social externalization*

in regard to learning in a precise and concrete manner.

Finally, students internalize knowledge into their personal comprehension schema. How knowledge is internalized into a personal comprehension schema after social externalization is one of the critical issues. In [7] on Meaning and Interpretation, he indicates that meanings in computer-supported collaborative learning are necessarily shared and must be interpreted by individuals. That is, learners interpret social artifacts, which are constructed by social interaction, on each individual's own perspective to reach personal comprehension. This is the only stage of intra-personal and non-observable stage in social knowledge-building, whereas other stages are mostly inter-personal and observable.

Another piece of empirical evidence of this process is that students who only read messages were found not to be inferior to students who write and post messages in terms of cognitive achievement (p<0.05). In this research, reading messages as well as writing and posting messages were found to be a critical achievement factor and a satisfaction factor. This finding implicates that one can get meaningful learning though he/she doesn't partake in social externalization after obtaining shared understanding; if one is not a team representative who is summarizing their discussion, he/she is hardly able to get an opportunity to externalize what they share from social reflection and just to watch and read other's externalized messages. In spite of not partaking in social discussion, these students showed high cognitive achievement just like those who posted social externalization messages. This means that there is some process for those who don't undertake observable externalization. It may be explained that people internalize their shared understanding by interpreting of social artifacts with each individual's own perspective to reach personal comprehension.

Regarding satisfaction, there was no significant difference between students who actively participated in social discussion by writing and posting messages and students who only read messages on the board (p<0.05). This implicates that students who only read messages also get meaningful learning and satisfaction through the dynamic interaction in the web class and there must be a certain stage to go to internalization. One study [15] gives a significant implication in this context. In [15], perception of overall interaction was a critical predictor of satisfaction. They suggested that overall dynamics in interaction might have a stronger impact on learners' satisfaction than strict personal participation. That is, vicarious interaction within the class as a whole than overt engagement of each participant may result in greater learner satisfaction. Therefore, reading only in a certain period of knowledge-building process could be considered as a meaningful learning activity.
