This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 14 November 2014, At: 10:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education and Teaching InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Information commitments in Web-based learningenvironmentsChin-Chung Tsai aa National Chiao Tung University , TaiwanPublished online: 20 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Chin-Chung Tsai (2004) Information commitments in Web-based learning environments, Innovations inEducation and Teaching International, 41:1, 105-112, DOI: 10.1080/1470329032000172748a

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1470329032000172748a

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Innovations in Education and Teaching International,Vol. 41, No. 1, February 2004

ISSN 1470–3297 (print)/ISSN 1470–3300 (online)/41/010105–08© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1470329032000172748

Information commitments in Web-based learning environments

Chin-Chung Tsai

*

National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan

Taylor and Francis LtdRIIE41109.sgm10.1080/1470329032000172748Innovations in Education and Teaching1470-3297 (print)/1470-3300 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd411117February 2004Chin-ChungTsaicctsai@mail.nctu.edu.tw

This paper proposes the idea of ‘information commitments’ for Web-based learning environments. Informationcommitments are a set of evaluative standards which Web users utilize in order to assess the accuracy andusefulness of Web-based materials. As a result of interviewing two experts who specialize in Web-based instruc-tion and 10 college students, this study proposes a framework for categorizing the information commitments.The framework describes a range of commitments from ‘authority’ to ‘multiple sources’ as the evaluative stan-dards about the correctness of Web-based materials. A range of views from ‘functional’ (such as the ease ofretrieving or searching information) to ‘content’ (the relevancy to the intended search) is used for assessing theusefulness of Web-based materials. The framework also reflects an information-searching strategy ranging from‘match’ to ‘elaboration and exploration’ (by metacognitive and purposeful thinking). The experts involved inthis study expressed information commitments more oriented to ‘multiple sources’, ‘content’ and ‘explorationand fit’ while many of the college students held commitments more aligned with ‘authority’ and ‘functional’and they utilized a ‘match’ searching strategy in Web-based environments.

Introduction

Educators, particularly those in science education, often view a learner’s experiences, knowledgeand information as a ‘conceptual ecology’ in his or her brain. The ‘epistemological commitment’is one of the major features in an individual’s conceptual ecology (Posner

et al.

, 1982). Episte-mological commitments involve an individual’s explanatory ideals, that is, his or her specificviews about what counts as a successful explanation in the field (e.g. science) and his or hergeneral views about the character of valid knowledge or information. Epistemological commit-ments are evaluative standards used to judge the merits of knowledge such as its generalizability,internal consistency and parsimony (Hewson, 1981, 1985). In the case of complex learning,where conceptual conflicts may occur between an individual’s personal knowledge and theformal ideas of a discipline, these commitments may be one of the most important componentsof an individual’s conceptual ecology (Hewson & Hewson, 1984; Tsai, 2001a). These commit-ments will guide the individual’s processes as well as outcomes of knowledge construction.

*

Institute of Education and Centre for Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta HsuehRoad, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. Email: cctsai@mail.nctu.edu.tw

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

106

C.-C. Tsai

Recently, Web technology has provided new ways for the design, development and distribu-tion of, as well as access to, learning materials (Lin & Hsieh, 2001; Tsai, 2001b; Tsai

et al.

, 2001;Chou & Tsai, 2002). Currently, one of the major methods of Web-based instruction involvesthe search and use of Web information which enriches learning and instruction. Of course, theway in which students and teachers search and filter information may be an important researchquestion. Hill (1999) also pointed out that exploring how users engage in information seekingin Web-based systems was an area in need of research if these systems were to fulfil their poten-tial as tools for information searching and learning. Web environments contain a variety ofperspectives, reports and information. Many of these may not be consistent and when they arein conflict, Web users need to have rules for filtering or selecting Web information. Similar tothe ideas of epistemological commitments, students or teachers may employ a set of standardsin evaluating Web information. This paper refers to these standards as ‘information commit-ments’. It is further proposed that there are at least the following two sets of informationcommitments for Web users:

1. The evaluative standards for the correctness of Web-based information.2. The evaluative standards for the usefulness of Web-based information.

Moreover, students’ searching strategies and behaviours on the Web have received much attentionby educators as they are related to students’ learning outcomes from Web-based environments(Hess, 1999; Hill, 1999; Tsai & Tsai, 2003). It is plausible to assume that different informationcommitments will lead to different types of searching strategies on the Web. Hence, searchingstrategies were also explored in this study. Therefore, by interviewing a group of college studentsand Web-based instruction experts, this study intended to explore the following questions:

1. What were the students’ and experts’ standards for evaluating the correctness of Web-basedinformation? Did the students and experts show any difference?

2. What were the students’ and experts’ standards for examining the usefulness of Web-basedinformation? Was there any difference between the students and experts?

3. What were the students’ and experts’ searching strategies for Web-based environments? Didthe students and experts reveal any difference?

Method

Research participants

In order to explore learners’ possible information commitments in Web-based environments, 10college students and two experts were interviewed individually. The two experts were universityprofessors who specialized in Web-based instruction. All of the college students had more thanthree years of experience of using the Web. Their main study areas ranged from English, math-ematics, physics, chemistry to computer sciences.

Data collection: interviews

These research participants (i.e. two experts and 10 college students) were interviewed indi-vidually by a trained researcher. The interview mainly explored each participant’s evaluative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Information commitments for Web-based learning

107

standards about the correctness as well as the usefulness of Web information. Each participantwas also asked to reflect upon his or her Web-searching strategy during the interview. The inter-view questions included:

1. How do you evaluate the accuracy of Web information? If you find some novel information,how do you determine whether to believe it or not? What are your criteria for this?

2. How do you judge the usefulness of Web information when you search on the Web? Do youhave any criteria for this?

3. Could you describe your searching strategy when finding information on the Web? How canyou search the Web information more effectively?

The interviews were tape-recorded. As the interviews were conducted in Chinese, all of theinterview data presented in this paper were translated by the author. These translated data wereexamined by a second independent Chinese speaker, who actually listened to the interviewtapes.

Results

Standards for the correctness

The first part of the interview explored research participants’ standards in evaluating the accu-racy of Web-based information. The experts usually used multiple sources, such as other Websites, prior knowledge, peers or other printed materials, to examine the correctness of Web infor-mation. For example, they stated that:

Expert 1

: When I see some novel information on the Web, I will try to find whether such informationwas also posted on other related Web sites … But, as you know, a lot of Web information is beingcopied and pasted across several Web sites. Hence, I will try to verify the information through my priorknowledge, peers or some other available resources, such as printed books.

Expert 2

: It is important to validate the information acquired from Web-based environments, partic-ularly having some information that contradicts (my) common-sense or background knowledge. I mayvisit some Web sites to ask for an official report for the information. I also try to email to the Webmanager to give me a clarification about the source of the information. Certainly, some other non-Web-based materials still help me a lot to examine the accuracy of Web information.

It seems that the experts were critical in filtering Web information, and they tried to ‘triangulate’the information through multiple sources. On the other hand, the students often used the‘authority’ of the Web sites as a major criterion for the correctness. Some of their interviewresults are presented below:

Student A

: If the information is given by some large or well-known Web sites, I will believe in itsaccuracy.

Student B

: First, the authority of Web sites is very important. If the Web sites are official or famous,in my opinion, their information is more correct. If the information is accredited by some significantfigures, for example, Nobel Prize recipients, its accuracy can be probably accepted. (

Researcher

: Howdo you know the information is actually given by the significant figures? Do you validate this?) Oh! Itis very difficult to do this. There is too much information on the Web. Therefore, the nature of the Websites, such as their historical reputation, is important to gain my trust.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

108

C.-C. Tsai

As a result, the information commitments about the correctness likely showed a range from onepole, called ‘multiple sources’ to the other pole, called ‘authority’. Experts expressed the idea of‘multiple sources’, while many students held the ‘authority’ information commitments.

Standards for usefulness

The second part of the interview investigated research participants’ standards of examiningthe usefulness of Web information. The experts had the following responses for this part of theinterview.

Expert 1

: Of course, the content of the Web site is the most important criterion for me to judge itsusefulness. If its content is very related to my search and it provides necessary information for mypresent search or even advanced search, it is perceived as very useful. Therefore, to be highly aware ofthe search purpose is very important to effectively find useful information on the Web.

Expert 2

: Now, when I use some search engines, such as Yahoo or Google, to find some information,numerous Web sites, say more than one hundred, are listed for my search. However, in most cases, notmany of them are useful. Some Web sites have beautiful titles or claim to provide rich information, butthey actually do not. So, I think, the content of the Web sites is important. To state more specifically,the high relevancy of Web information to my intended search is very critical. As a result, when search-ing information, I need to be more metacognitive. (

Researcher

: What do you mean by ‘metacognitive’?)Oh! I need to exactly understand the target of my search, and keep myself alert about it.

Clearly, the content of Web information was the most important standard for experts to evaluateits usefulness. Such commitments, as suggested by Expert 2, also implied a need for metacog-nitive thoughts while navigating on the Web. However, many students’ responses on this werequite different. For example,

Student F

: If the Web sites contain well-structured information for my search, I believe they are useful.

Student D

: If a Web site can give me all of the information for my search, I think it is very useful. Ido not like to visit several Web sites and then piece all of the information. This takes me a lot of time.

Student I

: My focus about the usefulness may be more related to some technical issues. For example,some Web sites, perhaps due to their Web design, are not very easy to retrieve information, or they takea lot of time to deliver information from their servers. Some Web sites need to navigate several homepagesor instructional pages to enter their main pages. Still some Web sites need to register or key in somepersonal information when retrieving information. For me, I will not get in these Web pages. In thissense, they are not useful.

It is clear that many students placed their standards about the usefulness of Web informationmainly on the ease of retrieval, the ease of search or the ease of giving rich information. Theircommitments were more related to functional and technical issues. Based on the interviewresults presented above, the information commitments about the usefulness likely showed arange from one pole, called ‘content’ to the other pole, called ‘functional’. The ‘content’commitment was emphasized by experts, while many students stressed the ‘functional’ issues ofthe usefulness of Web information.

Search strategy

As described previously, different information commitments may lead to different types of searchstrategy on the Web. Research participants’ Web-based searching strategies were also investi-gated in the interviews. The experts had the following description about their search strategies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Information commitments for Web-based learning

109

Expert 1

: The Web contains a variety of information. On the one hand, users need to be more critical,but on the other hand, users can try to summarize or refine various sources of information. Hence, Ithink, my search strategy is more oriented to ‘elaboration’. (

Researcher

: What do you mean by ‘elabo-ration’?) I perceive some potential linkages among these sources of information. I try to find the bestfit, under my purposeful thinking or elaboration.

Expert 2

: I think it is a kind of exploration. In theWeb, I try to explore some information that fits thebest relevancy of my target search. The exploration helps me acquire a variety of perspectives, but asyou asked in this interview, I need to have careful judgements. I think, this process of making judge-ments is also a kind of exploration.

Experts most likely employed an ‘elaboration and exploration’ searching strategy on the Web.They tried to integrate Web information to find the best fit that fulfilled their purposes. Again,they emphasized the need for clearly knowing the search purpose and the need for careful judge-ments when exploring Web information. In other words, Web users need to be metacognitive,or to have purposeful thinking when navigating in the Web environments. On the other hand,many students most likely used a ‘match’ approach to search Web information.

Student C

: As the Web includes a lot of information, the best way of finding information is to match.My strategy is to match existing Web information with my intended search.

Student B

: Many search engines use keywords for search, and they will list related Web sites by thedegree of match (with keywords). I often use this way of search.

Student I

: The Web contains a variety of information and materials. Based on my experiences, youcan often find a Web site that exactly matches your search. But, you need to be patient to find it.

As the interview data suggested, these research participants’ search strategies can be classifiedinto one category, called ‘elaboration and exploration’ (as revealed by the experts) and anothercategory, called ‘match’ (as expressed by some of the students).

A framework for information commitments

Based upon the interview findings presented above, this paper proposes a theoretical frameworkfor describing Web users’ information commitments, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A framework categorizing information commitments and searching strategies

This figure shows the information commitments as ‘multiple sources’ versus ‘authority’ and‘content’ versus ‘functional’ with searching strategy categorized as ‘elaboration and exploration’versus ‘match’. On the basis of the framework proposed in Figure 1, all of the research partici-pants’ interview data were categorized, as shown in Table 1.

The author and a trained researcher conducted the categorization after actually listening tothe interview record. Table 1 revealed that the two experts clearly had information commitments

Figure 1. A framework categorizing information commitments and searching strategies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

110

C.-C. Tsai

categorized as ‘multiple sources’, ‘content’ and then employed ‘elaboration and exploration’search strategies. On the other hand, many students expressed commitments that were moreoriented to ‘authority’ (6 among the 10), and ‘functional’ (7 among the 10), and they utilizedsearching strategies which were more oriented to ‘match’ (7 among the 10). Among these 10students, only one student (Student J) had similar information commitments and searchingstrategies to those expressed by experts.

It should be emphasized that the framework proposed here is based on the interview responsesgathered from only two experts and 10 college students. Hence, the findings of this case studyare pilot in nature. Research related to students’ behaviours and ideas about Web-based learningenvironments is still at a pioneering stage. Similar approaches with a small number of subjectswere also utilized by other Web-related studies (e.g. Hill, 1999; Oliver & Hannafin, 2000; Tsai& Tsai, 2003). Researchers can use the initial framework suggested here to further investigatestudents’ information commitments in Web-based learning environments with a much largersample of subjects. Researchers may find some mixed ideas or different views about the commit-ments than those revealed by this study.

Discussion and conclusions

Through interviewing a group of Web users, this paper proposes a framework of describing theircommitments to Web information. This study further suggests that Web users’ informationcommitments are possibly related to their epistemological beliefs, as both of them involve judge-ments and perceptions about the nature and merits of knowledge or information. The role ofepistemological beliefs has been widely discussed and investigated in educational research liter-ature (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Tsai, 1998, 1999; Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Hofer, 2001).Windschitl and Andre (1998) also found that students with more advanced epistemologicalbeliefs learned more in open-ended and inquiry-oriented computer-assisted instructional envi-ronments. These students might well perceive the merits of open-ended learning environments,

1

Table 1. Research participants’ information commitments as categorized by this study

Commitments to correctness

Commitments to usefulness Searching strategy

Expert 1 Multiple sources Content Elaboration and explorationExpert 2 Multiple sources Content Elaboration and explorationStudent A Authority Functional MatchStudent B Authority Functional MatchStudent C Authority Functional MatchStudent D Authority Functional MatchStudent E Authority Content MatchStudent F Authority Functional Elaboration and explorationStudent G Multiple sources Functional Elaboration and explorationStudent H Multiple sources Content MatchStudent I Multiple sources Functional MatchStudent J Multiple sources Content Elaboration and exploration

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Information commitments for Web-based learning

111

as they were more consistent with their epistemological beliefs, which viewed knowledge as moredynamic and uncertain that required careful exploration.

This paper proposes that the commitments to the correctness of Web information are partic-ularly related to epistemological beliefs (i.e. authority versus multiple sources). This is alsodocumented in the study by Oliver and Hannafin (2000) that students with naive epistemolog-ical beliefs (simple truths evident) tended to use Web-related tools less effectively than thosewith advanced epistemological beliefs (multiple truths interpreted). For instance, if a studentbelieved that some open-ended problems could only have one way of resolution, he or she maynot refer to multiple sources of evidence, nor collect or strive to integrate a variety of information(either from Web-based environments or non-Web-based information sources). Students withnaive epistemological beliefs may also not be critical in filtering Web information. A carefulinvestigation about the relationships between Web users’ epistemological beliefs and informa-tion commitments may be a potential research topic for educators.

It is recognized that information-searching behaviours are also related to the design of Web-based learning environments or the nature of multimedia learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2002).This study, however, provided some innovative thoughts about Web users’ underlying beliefs orcommitments about Web-based information. Researchers can employ the framework proposedin this paper to explore a large group of Web users’ information commitments, or to develop aquestionnaire to assess their commitments. More studies about students’ or teachers’ informa-tion commitments are necessary, if searching information on the Web is still one of the majorpurposes for improving instruction.

Acknowledgement

Funding of this research work was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, undergrant numbers NSC 90-2511-S-009-001 and NSC 91-2511-S-009-001.

Notes on contributor

Chin-Chung Tsai is currently a Professor at the Institute of Education and Centre for TeacherEducation, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. He is interested in scienceeducation, constructivism, Internet-based instruction and human behaviour in Internet-based environments.

References

Buehl, M. M. & Alexander, P. A. (2001) Beliefs about academic knowledge,

Educational Psychology Review,

13,385–418.

Chou, C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2002) Developing Web-based curricula: issues and challenges,

Journal of CurriculumStudies,

34, 623–636.Hess, B. (1999) Graduate student cognition during information retrieval using the World Wide Web: a pilot

study,

Computers & Education,

33, 1–13.Hewson, P. W. (1981) A conceptual change approach to learning science,

European Journal of Science Educa-tion,

3, 383–396.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

112

C.-C. Tsai

Hewson, P. W. (1985) Epistemological commitments in the learning of science: examples from dynamics,

European Journal of Science Education,

7, 163–172.Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1984) The role of conceptual change and the design of science instruction,

Instructional Science,

13, 1–13.Hill, J. R. (1999) A conceptual framework for understanding information seeking in open-ended information

systems,

Educational Technology Research & Development,

47, 5–27.Hofer, B. K. (2001) Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and teaching,

EducationalPsychology Review,

13, 353–383.Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge

and knowing and their relation to learning,

Review of Educational Research,

67, 88–140.Lin, B. & Hsieh, C. (2001) Web-based teaching and learner control: a research review,

Computers & Education,

37, 377–386.Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002) Animation as an aid to multimedia learning,

Educational Psychology Review,

14, 87–99.Oliver, K. & Hannafin, M. J. (2000) Student management of Web-based hypermedia resources during open-

ended problem solving,

Journal of Educational Research,

94, 75–92.Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) Accommodation of a scientific concep-

tion: toward a theory of conceptual change,

Science Education,

66, 211–227.Tsai, C.-C. (1998) An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese

eighth graders,

Science Education,

82, 473–489.Tsai, C.-C. (1999) ‘Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths’: a study of eighth graders’

scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities,

Science Education,

83, 654–674.Tsai, C.-C. (2001a) A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical

thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-assisted chemistry classrooms,

Journal ofChemical Education,

78, 970–974.Tsai, C.-C. (2001b) The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to

Internet-based instruction in Taiwan,

International Journal of Educational Development,

21, 401–415.Tsai, C.-C., Liu, E. Z.-F., Lin, S. S. J. & Yuan, S.-M. (2001) A networked peer assessment system based on a

Vee heuristic,

Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

38, 220–230.Tsai, M.-J. & Tsai, C.-C. (2003) Information searching strategies in Web-based science learning: the role

of Internet self-efficacy,

Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

40, 43–50.Windschitl, M. & Andre, T. (1998) Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the roles of

constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

35,145–160.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:52

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14