This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]On: 05 October 2014, At: 12:18Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Behaviour & Information TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Relationship of metacognitive monitoring withinteraction in an asynchronous online discussion forumAbdullah Topcu aa Department of Science and Mathematics , Kuleli Military College , Istanbul , TurkeyPublished online: 17 May 2010.

To cite this article: Abdullah Topcu (2010) Relationship of metacognitive monitoring with interaction in an asynchronousonline discussion forum, Behaviour & Information Technology, 29:4, 395-402, DOI: 10.1080/01449291003692649

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449291003692649

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

Relationship of metacognitive monitoring with interaction in an asynchronous

online discussion forum

Abdullah Topcu*

Department of Science and Mathematics, Kuleli Military College, Istanbul, Turkey

(Received 11 February 2008; final version received 10 February 2010)

Monitoring one’s own performance accurately is essential for information-processing and self-regulation, which areindispensable in an online learning environment. In this article, the effect of metacognitive monitoring (MM) oninteraction in an asynchronous online discussion forumwas investigated. Transcripts of this forum, whichwas integratedin a face-to-face traditional undergraduate course, were analysed in terms of Henri’s (1992) cognitive and interactivedimensions. MMwas measured by the ‘cognitive-title’ technique, which makes use of the cognitive dimension. Analysisindicated that MM had a large effect size on interaction in the asynchronous online discussion forum. The studyparticularly suggests that labelling messages with a ‘cognitive-title’ should be a rule of asynchronous online discussionforum protocol. Moreover, this activity might also be a useful tool for improving MM in a virtual environment.

Keywords: computer-mediated communication; interaction; metacognitive monitoring

1. Introduction

Many teachers nowadays use asynchronous onlinediscussions in online learning environments in additionto face-to-face discussions in their classrooms. Suchdiscussions increase reflective interaction, provide aplatform for active thinking and facilitate the con-struction of knowledge (Schellens et al. 2007). How-ever, the virtual learning space of asynchronous onlinediscussions does not promote the kind of deep andcoherent dialogue necessary for meaningful learning(Hakkinen et al. 2001, Thomas 2002). The complextask of integrating disparate sources of informationcoming through visual and verbal channels to the braintends to stress students’ cognitive capacity andconsequently impairs their learning (Nash et al. 2000,Mayer 2001). Nevertheless, metacognitive monitoring(MM) can facilitate the regulation needed to buildcoherent mental representation through active andefficient information processing. Thus metacognitiveprocessing might be an important factor in the designof asynchronous online forum interfaces, leading toheightened awareness of the learner and greaterusability of the medium (Karat 1997, Vu et al. 2000).Thus there is a strong need to study MM in onlinelearning environments and especially its effect oninteractions in asynchronous online discussion forums.

2. Theoretical framework

The potential of computer-mediated communicationas a teaching and learning medium has been widely

examined and discussed (Bates 2005, Erlich et al.2004). Most research findings show that it can make avaluable contribution to the process of teaching andlearning, both cognitively and socially (Schellens et al.2007). By means of computer-mediated commu-nication instructors and students can engage oneanother in ways that promote critical thinking, mean-ingful problem solving and knowledge construction(Dillenbourg and Tchounikine 2007). Asynchronousonline discussion forums, the most prevalent form ofthe computer-mediated communication, provide op-portunities for collaborative learning and pedagogicaltransactions that can be characterised as dialogic innature (Schellens et al. 2007). To the same extent thatoral speech is central to face-to-face classroom inter-action (Wells 1999), so online discourse, a term Davisand Brewer (1997) use to refer to the ‘writing-talking’characteristics of online interaction, is central toasynchronous online forums. The importance ofdiscussion in the learning process is supported bytheories that consider the development of thought tobe mediated by social discourse (Vygostsky 1978). Asthe use of asynchronous online discussion forumsincreases, it becomes necessary to investigate learner–learner interaction in this environment (Henri 1992,Schellens et al. 2007).

Interaction comprised of group communicationand discussion or any other form of collaboration thatoccurs among instructors and learners may lead todiscovery and sharing of ideas (Yang 2006). Accordingto this perspective, interactive learning experiences

*Email: abdullah.topcu@boun.edu.tr

Behaviour & Information Technology

Vol. 29, No. 4, July–August 2010, 395–402

ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/01449291003692649

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

which increase social presence, limit the negative effectof commonly occurring delayed responses and de-crease discontinuities in the asynchronous onlinediscussions have a more positive effect on learning(Ellis and Calvo 2006). Recent research has under-taken the challenge of identifying variables thatpromote effective interactive online learning (Thomas2002, Schrire 2006). Specifically, the variable metacog-nition has received attention because efficient inter-active learning in virtual task environments depends onaccurate evaluations of capacity demands and skilfulallocation of cognitive resources (Vu et al. 2000,Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2005). Students canenhance their performance by being aware of their owncognitive processes as they read, write and solveproblems in a virtual environment. In this respect,metacognition serves to evaluate one’s learning effi-ciency by providing insights into one’s own thinking aswell as rich data for time planning and goal acquisition(Tobias and Everson 2000, Vu et al. 2000, Nietfeldet al. 2005).

Metacognition is defined as the ability to monitorlearning, evaluate the process and make adjustments inthe way one learns (Flavell 1979). Thus, metacognitioncontributes to learning in several ways, but especiallyby helping learners to use their resources efficiently, toprocess information at a deeper level, and to monitortheir performance accurately (Nietfeld et al. 2005).Metacognition is usually divided into three compo-nents: metacognitive knowledge, MM and control ofthese processes (Pintrich et al. 2000). MM, the focus ofthis study, refers to one’s awareness of comprehensionand task performance (Schraw 1998). In other words,it is to monitor learning by differentiating between theknown and the unknown (Tobias and Everson 2000).It aids learners in setting proper learning objectives,keeping track of ongoing cognitive processes and usingregulatory strategies. MM provides data for self-generated feedback. If the monitoring is not accurate,control of one’s learning and effective performance oftasks may be impossible. MM, therefore, is a strategicskill that might have a critical role in effectiveinteractive learning experiences.

Assigned tasks in an asynchronous online discus-sion forum might increase or decrease the accuracy ofparticipants’ MM (Nietfeld et al. 2005). The interfacedesign of the forum structures the proceedings bydefining the sequences of activities, creating roleswithin groups and constraining the mode of interactionbetween groups and among peers (Jermann andDillenbourg 2003, Jennex 2005). While some tasks setup conditions of argumentation by pairing studentswith opposite opinions, some only scaffold the inter-action process (Dillenbourg and Tchounikine 2007).While some tasks require high interaction with the

online forum interface, some only require the use of amessage box. Judicious selection of tasks can inducelearning activities closely related to metacognition andthe process of knowledge acquisition (Karat 1982).The sort of activity required by a task affects the natureof collaboration and the cognitive load, depending onthe level and form of the interaction. In the forumstudied in this research project, the activity ‘labellingeach message with a ‘‘cognitive-title’’ provides anopportunity to investigate the relationship betweeninteraction and MM, thereby operationalising themeasure of MM in this environment.

Moreover, the context of an asynchronous onlinediscussion forum might increase or decrease theaccuracy of MM. Learners might fail to obtain criticalinformation from a display even when the designerintended to make the information highly visible andeasy to apprehend. An asynchronous online discussionforum is a kind of virtual classroom, but it cannotconvey emotional tonalities totally or clearly. It doesnot permit mutual conversation as in a face-to-faceenvironment. Therefore, MM might be stimulated byvarious dynamics at various levels, such as usingemoticons, pop-ups, menus, helping tips, supportsystems and so on, thereby sustaining attention andstimulating vigilance (Karat 1997, Faulkner 1998).Consequently, accurate MM might increase usability,which might be proportional to interaction. Interac-tion requires a user-centred forum interface andsustained attention throughout the online discussion.Therefore, MM might be vital for achieving efficientand satisfactory interactions.

So it is seen that there is a strong need to investigatethe effects of MM on interaction in the onlineasynchronous discussion forum. Accordingly, thefollowing research question was addressed in thisstudy: What is the relationship between MMand interaction in asynchronous online forum discus-sions?

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

The study is conducted in the context of a fourth year,four credit university course, ‘Computer-AssistedMathematics Instruction’, part of the ‘EducationalSciences in Mathematics’ curriculum, which leads to abachelor’s degree in education. It was a web-enhancedface-to-face course. The sample consisted of 30 pre-service teachers. There were 17 females and 13 males inthe sample, all between 21 and 23 years of age. Theyhad taken an ‘Introduction to Computer’ course attheir first year and had been using computers and theinternet regularly.

396 A. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

3.2. Procedure

The researcher as instructor conducted the study in thefall semester of the academic year 2007–2008. The onlinediscussion forum was embedded in the course website.Five discussion themes, the units of the course, werespaced throughout the semester for a period of 1 weekeach, except for the first, which lasted for 2 weeks, whilethe pre-service teachers became familiar with theasynchronous online discussion forum and its tools.The themes were Drill and Practice, Spreadsheets,Hypermedia, Geometer’s Sketchpad and Evaluation ofEducational Software. The discussions of these themeswere conducted in the third, sixth, tenth, twelfth andthirteenth week of the semester, respectively.

Participation by submitting three messages in a 1week period (5 p.m. Monday to 5 p.m. Saturday) wascompulsory for all pre-service teachers. Participationwas scored and represented 20% of the course grade.Upon enrolment in the course, pre-service teacherswere informed about the online discussion forumprocedures, such as logging-in, sending messages,navigating within the forum, how to give a title anda ‘cognitive-title’. A number of strict rules defining thenature of participation were spelled out:

(1) Messages should be written in formal writtenstyle,

(2) Eachmessage should have a comprehensive title,(3) Each message should be labelled with a

‘cognitive-title’ referring to the cognitive levelof the message,

(4) Successful participation means sending a mes-sage that resolves a conflict in the discussions orcontributes in some way to higher mentalprocesses.

3.3. Research design

The research was conducted in a naturalistic, realworld setting. It is a correlational study investigatingthe relationship between interaction and MM in anasynchronous online discussion forum, while control-ling gender and Grade Point Average (GPA). GPA is amean of previous course grades, weighted with respectto the number of credits assigned to each course.Independent variables are MM, gender and GPA. Thedependent variable is interaction. Interaction scoresrange from 0 to 9; GPA scores from 0 to 4 and MMscores from 0 and 18.

3.4. Data analysis

3.4.1. Discussion themes

In weekly face-to-face lectures, pre-service teacherswere introduced to a variety of applications for

computer-assisted instruction, such as tutorials, drilland practice, simulation, Geometer’s Sketchpad, sim-ulation and so on. In the online discussion forum,parallel to the lectures, the pre-service teachers weregiven problems that focused on a conceptual frame-work for the topics and on real-life situations related tothe lectures working. For example, the followingquestion was posed for the theme of Spreadsheets:‘Consider that you will teach the operation ofexponential numbers. You want to prepare a ‘what-if’ simulation by using a spreadsheet with yourstudents. Discuss your learning objectives and designprocess in relation to your curricular goals’. Anotherquestion referred to a video clip of a geometry lesson inwhich Geometer’s Sketchpad was used: ‘Assess theperformance of students and teacher by consideringthe use of Geometer’s Sketchpad in the classroom’.

3.4.2. Research data

Message texts in the forum discussions were firstcopied into a coding organisation matrix constructedin a Microsoft Word file and organised according tothe themes and their chronological order. A sample ofthe coding organisation matrix is shown in Table 1. Asseen in this sample, transcripts do not contain anyinformation revealing the message sender’s identity(gender, name, etc.). The transcript of the output of 30pre-service teachers for five themes included 808messages. All of the messages were used for thepurpose of analysis.

3.4.3. The unit of analysis

An objective determination of a unit in contentanalysis is difficult to make. The researcher elected tofollow the procedure suggested by Rourke et al. (2001),that each complete message is the unit of analysis. Atotal of 808 units of analysis were identified in this way.

3.4.4. Coding the messages in the transcripts

Rourke and Anderson (2003) suggest that instead ofdeveloping new coding schemes, researchers should useschemes that have been developed and used in previousstudies. This study used Henri’s (1992) approach fortwo reasons: (1) it is a pioneering method for contentanalysis of online forum discussions (Schrire 2006);and (2) it focuses on the social activity and interactivityof individuals in a group while at the same time givinga picture of the cognitive and metacognitive processesof those individuals (Lally 2001). Henri’s wholeanalytical framework (1992) consists of five dimen-sions: participative, social, interactive, cognitive andmetacognitive. The present study dealt with the

Behaviour & Information Technology 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

cognitive and interactive dimensions of the model. Thecognitive dimension of Henri’s model consists of‘Elementary clarification’ (EC, observing or studyinga problem, identifying its elements, and observing theirlinkages in order to acquire a basic understanding);‘In-depth clarification’ (IC, analysing and understand-ing a problem to come to an understanding whichsheds light on values, beliefs, and assumptions);‘Inference’ (IN, induction and deduction, admittingor proposing an idea on the basis of its links withpropositions already admitted as true); ‘Judgement’(JU, making decisions, statements, appreciation, eva-luations, criticisms; sizing up) and ‘Strategies’ (ST,proposing coordinated actions for the application of asolution). The primary purpose for identifying andanalysing the cognitive dimension is to use it tomeasure MM. Accordingly, it was used for scoringparticipation.

In the interactive dimension, contributions to theonline discussions are differentiated between explicit,implicit or independent. Explicit interactions (EI) canbe a response to a posted question or a commentary onsomeone else’s message. Implicit Interactions (II)include a response to or a commentary on a priormessage or idea, without specific reference to theconnection. The independent statement (IS) categoryincludes messages that contain new ideas that are notconnected to other ideas expressed previously in theforum discussion.

Coding of the messages was conducted separatelyby the researcher and an in-service teacher with 13

years of experience, also a doctoral candidate ininformatics science. The coders practised on a sampleof messages and helped each other to becomeacquainted with the particularities of the analyticalmodel and to reach agreement in their coding. Aftereach coder had coded each complete transcript ofdiscussion, the quality of the coding was assessed bycalculating Cohen’s k statistic. A value of 0.76 for thecognitive dimension and 0.74 for the interactiondimension was taken as the criterion for inter-raterreliability. After negotiations, inter-rater reliabilityvaried between 0.83 and 0.91 for the cognitivedimension and between 0.89 and 0.95 for the interac-tion dimension. To check whether it was not alwaysthe same coder changing his or her coding category,the per cent agreement for each individual coder wasalso calculated. This latter represents the level ofagreement between the first and second coding of aunit of analysis. The values were always 40.84.

3.4.5. Measuring metacognitive monitoring

The metacognitive dimensions of Henri’s modelcomprise metacognitive knowledge and metacognitiveskills. Although useful information can be found in themessages by using this model, it is impossible todiscover the totality of the metacognitive processes (DeWever et al. 2006). MM is a complex process that hasto be measured while the process goes on (Schraw2000). Inspired by the well-known and valid ‘Meta-cognitive Monitoring Assessment’ (Tobias and

Table 1. Sample of coding organisation matrix.

Content of the messageMessage

no. Time InteractionCognitiveDimension

As teachers, we should use web-based techniquesin our math classes. This is because students’ needsand characteristics are different. However, thisdoes not mean that students should spend moretime in computer labs. I think this could beanother form of lecturing if students are taughtand directed by computer. So, as Jane(pseudonym) [EI] said, we cannot ignore the roleof teachers in math teaching. Teachers should useweb-based activities as a supplement to theirteaching strategies. Otherwise, computers will takethe role of the teachers and students will becomepassive learners as they copy information from thenet [JU].

522 Wed. Nov. 30,2007,

11:07 pm

Explicitinteraction

Judgment

To do so [II] means that the student reallyunderstands something and can use it how he orshe chooses [IN]. For example, each student candraw a different graph of a given function–velocityv. time, for example, using different values. Theinput might be the same but the output (students’graphs) might be different because of the differentvalues.

543 01 Dec 2007,04:05 pm

Implicitinteraction

Inference

398 A. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Everson 2000), the researcher developed the ‘cognitive-title’ technique used to measure MM in this study. The‘Metacognitive Monitoring Assessment’ employs thebasic strategy of evaluating the discrepancy betweenstudents’ estimates and their actual knowledge orability (as determined by performance on a test). In the‘cognitive-title’ technique, the assessment is determinedby comparing ‘cognitive-titles’ given by the pre-serviceteachers and the coders. Pre-service teachers picked a‘cognitive-title’ for each message from the list ofHenri’s cognitive dimensions, which were providedby the instructor on the asynchronous online discus-sion forum website. If there was agreement between the‘cognitive-title’ given by a pre-service teacher and oneof the coders, the message was scored as ‘1’. Otherwise,it was scored as ‘0’. Each pre-service teacher receivedan MM score according to his or her accuracy inidentifying the ‘cognitive-titles’ of the messages.External validity of this technique was verified byexamining its relationship with the ‘MetacognitiveMonitoring Assessment’ technique. The correlationwas significant at the 0.05 level, r ¼ 0.578.

3.4.6. Statistical analysis

An interaction score for each pre-service teacher wascalculated by averaging the sum of the scores he or shereceived in the weekly discussions. The weekly inter-action scores were obtained by adding up messageinteraction scores: 3 for EI, 2 for II and 0 for IS. SinceEI requires one to mention the specific connection ofthe message with others, it requires greater awarenessof the entire forum discussions than II or IS requires.MM scores were calculated by adding up all messagescores obtained from the ‘cognitive-title’ technique. Amessage might include one or more cognitive andinteraction levels at the same time. While calculatingthe interaction and the MM scores, the level withhighest score was preferred. Additionally, if there weremore than three messages in a 1-week period, then theresearcher used the messages having the highest scores.Percentage, mean and standard deviations were alsocalculated to help develop a general understanding ofthe variables. Additionally, multiple regressions wereconducted to explain whether MM had a relationshipwith interaction in an asynchronous online forumdiscussion when gender and GPA were controlled.Since web literacy was at a sufficient level for all pre-service teachers, it was not included in the analyses.

4. Findings

Table 2 summarises the descriptive statistics for thecognitive and interaction dimensions of the messages,in accord with Henri’s model. As seen below, the pre-

service teachers mostly sent JU and EC level messages,and 56% of the messages were at the higher level (IN,JU and ST). Approximately 50% of the interactionswere realised as explicitly. Most of the EI was observedat the cognitive level of IC and JU, whereas most of theII was seen at the cognitive level of ST and JU. Table 3shows the mean of the MM scores with respect to thecognitive and interactive dimensions. The highestmean of MM scores was for the JU and the ST levelsof the cognitive dimension, whereas the highest of theinteractive dimension was for EI. In detail, the casesST with EI, JU with EI, ST with II, and JU with IIhave the highest mean MM scores. Furthermore, thehighest mean MM score (12.7) was at the 12th week(4th online forum discussions) whereas the lowest (8.4)was at the 3rd week (1st online forum discussions).

Multiple regressions using the hierarchical entrymethod were conducted as Block 1 ‘MM’ and Block 2‘Gender’ and ‘GPA’. The results of multiple regres-sions analysis are presented in Table 4. The values ofR2 for the MM and this model were 0.427 and 0.501,indicating that the MM accounted for 41% or less ofvariation in the interaction scores, whereas the modelaccounted for 44% or less of variation in theinteraction scores. Therefore, the MM explained alarge amount of the variation in the interaction scores.The adjusted R2 for the MM was 0.427, indicating thatit has a large effect size (0.08 small, 0.15 medium, 0.3large). The observed value of effect size was calculatedat 0.74 by using formula f2 ¼ R2/(1 - R2) for the MM.Hence, it was of practical significance. The MM andthis model were also more significant at predicting theinteraction scores than chance alone: F (1, 29) ¼

Table 2. Distribution of the cognitive levels of the messageswith respect to the interaction types.

Variables EC IC IN JU ST Sum

II 31 13 22 71 54 191EI 85 124 26 138 35 408IS 92 14 44 12 47 209Sum 208 151 92 221 136 808

EC, elementary clarification; IC, in-depth clarification; IN, inference;JU, judgement; ST, strategies.

Table 3. Mean of the MM scores of the pre-service teacherswith respect to the interactive and cognitive dimensions.

EC IC IN JJ ST Total

II 8.35 9.05 7.35 12.21 13.60 10.11EI 9.75 11.08 8.85 15.75 16.60 12.41IS 8.45 7.02 5.40 8.35 10.55 7.95Total 8.85 9.05 7.20 12.10 13.60 10.16

EC, elementary clarification; IC, in-depth clarification; IN, inference;JU, judgement; ST, strategies.

Behaviour & Information Technology 399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

20.587, p 5 0.05 and F (3, 29) ¼ 8.715, p 5 0.05,respectively. The strongest predictor of the interactionscores was the MM, with a standardised b coefficient0.566 (p 5 0.05, confidence intervals 0.079, 0.325).This is a strong positive relationship, indicating that asMM increases, interaction increases. Gender and GPAwere not significant predictors of interaction scores.Table 5 shows the correlations among factors includedin the multiple regressions. This indicates thatalthough GPA was not a significant predictor ofinteraction scores, there was significant correlationbetween the two, r ¼ 0.517, p 5 0.05. Also of interestis a significant negative correlation between GPA andgender, r ¼ 70.583, p 5 0.05.

5. Conclusions, discussions and suggestions

The aim of the study was to identify the relationship ofMM with interaction in an asynchronous onlinediscussion forum. Findings support that MM is astrong predictor of interaction with a strong positiverelationship, which indicates that as MM increases,interaction increases. The findings confirm the resultsof previous studies by Ellias and Zimmerman (2001),Faulkner (1998) and Nietfeld et al. (2005) that learner–learner and learner–instructor interactions are stimu-lated and rendered more productive by efficient use ofmemory in action and cognitive capacities, which needeffective monitoring skills. The findings are alsoconsistent with research done by Lin et al. (1999),

which reported that monitoring is needed to scaffoldthe process of asking questions, providing constructivefeedback, explaining, constructing arguments andelaborations, all of which are catalysts for efficientinteractions.

Previous researches (Schraw 2007) emphasise thatthe instructor should produce strategies for activatingMM in a virtual environment. Labelling messages witha ‘cognitive-title’ might have an effect on the cognitiveand metacognitive processes as well as discussions.Since this technique promotes cognitive awareness,and requires regularity and proximity, both of whichare important characteristics of effective thought(Bandura 1986), it can facilitate students’ monitoringof cognitive processes. Thus it can aid improvement ofMM skills. Since even good learners have troubleregulating their cognitive processes in this virtualenvironment, instructors need various methods fortraining and improving students’ MM (Schraw 2007).Therefore, future research should investigate thepossible effect of the ‘cognitive-title’ technique onMM skills. Remarkably, it can be argued that it mightreduce the time needed for becoming expert in a virtualenvironment, because expertise is related to MM(Nash et al. 2000). So, there is also a need for anexperimental study to investigate the relationshipbetween duration for becoming expert in this environ-ment and MM.

Clearly, the interrelationship among MM, ‘cogni-tive-title’ activity, and interaction is multidimensional,because interaction among learners through messagesis affected by the learners’ interaction with the onlineforum interface and the learners’ levels of experience.They are unaware of great amounts of visual informa-tion on the forum interface (Varakin et al. 2004).Failure in visual awareness might be related to limitedcapacity of visual processing, motivation to learnabout the topic, lack of expertise in the forum interfaceand difficulties in accessing information (Nash et al.2000, Varakin et al. 2004). At this point, MM mighthave a role in increasing visual awareness, becauseMM facilitates regulation and control over the dataprovided by the medium. Besides, the activity increases

Table 4. Contribution of predictive variables on interaction.

Model

Unstandardisedcoefficients

Standardised coefficientst Significance

95% confidence interval for b

b Std. error b Lower bound Upper bound

(Constant) 2.744 1.818 1.510 0.143 70.992 6.480MM 0.202 0.060 0.566 3.384 0.002 0.079 0.325GPA 0.766 0.734 0.215 1.044 0.306 70.743 2.275Gender 70.285 0.519 70.102 70.549 0.588 71.353 0.783

MM, metacognitive monitoring; GPA, grade point average.

Table 5. Correlation matrix of all factors included in theanalysis.

FactorsInteraction

scores MM Gender GPA

Interaction scores – 0.653a 70.202 0.517a

MM – 0.045 0.428a

Gender – 70.583a

GPA –

aCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

MM, metacognitive monitoring; GPA, grade point average.

400 A. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

interaction with the entire interface, because accurate‘cognitive-title’ identification requires complete andaccurate understanding of the interface content. All ofthese might imply that more user-friendly and user-centred interfaces can be evolved by stimulating MMactivities embedded in the online forum.

A high occurrence of explicit interactions might becaused by using ‘cognitive-title’ activity, because suchactivity might stimulate awareness and control overcognitive processes, and this might increase self-confidence and efficacy. Thus, pre-service teacherssent EI-type messages. The contention is also sup-ported by the finding that more EI-type messages weresent by the pre-service teachers having high MMaccuracy. Since EI increases motivation to participatein forum discussions and provides a kind of signal forreducing uncertainty, MM might extend duration ofattention (Faulkner 1998). Therefore, the relationshipamong interaction, MM, and sustained attention tochange of the stimuli in the forum interface should beinvestigated experimentally.

The present study can be criticised because ofseveral limitations. First, the research sample consistedof fourth-year mathematics pre-service teachers. Onemight question that the findings can be generalised tostudents in other knowledge domains and at othereducational levels. Future research should focus onlarger sample sizes and a wider range of highereducation students to get a better understanding ofthe impact of MM on interaction in asynchronousonline discussion forums. Second, validity of the‘cognitive-title’ technique was verified only withrespect to external validity. However, there is a needfor verification that it actually measures the constructof MM. Moreover, validity depends upon how thetechnique is used and interpreted (Messick 1989).Therefore, use of this technique in other contextswould test and potentially strengthen its validity aswell as reliability. Lastly, the relationship betweeninteraction and MM was investigated for one onlineforum. Future experimental research should investi-gate this relationship for online forums havingdifferent interfaces and for various samples of peoplehaving different levels of attention.

Consequently, MM has an important role inincreasing effective interaction, thereby improving theeffectiveness of asynchronous online discussions. Also,the activity of labelling ‘cognitive-title’ might effec-tively stimulate MM in this environment.

References

Bandura, A., 1986. Social foundation of though and action: asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bates, A.W., 2005. Technology, e-learning and distanceeducation. New York: Routledge Falmer Studies inDistance Education.

Davis, B. and Brewer, J.P., 1997. Electronic discourse:linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

De Wever, B., et al., 2006. Content analysis schemes toanalyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussiongroups: a review. Computers & Education, 46 (1), 6–28.

Dillenbourg, P. and Tchounikine, P., 2007. Flexibility inmacro-scripts for computer-supported collaborativelearning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (1),1–13.

Ellias, D. and Zimmerman, B.J., 2001. Enhancing self-monitoring during self-regulated learning of speech. In:H.J. Hartman, ed. Metacognition in learning and instruc-tion. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 205–228.

Ellis, R.A. and Calvo, R.A., 2006. Discontinuities inuniversity student experiences of g-learning throughdiscussions. British Journal of Educational Technology,37 (1), 55–68.

Erlich, Z., Erlich-Philip, I., and Gal-Ezer, J., 2004. Skillsrequired for participating in CMC courses: an empiricalstudy. Computer & Education, 44 (4), 476–487.

Faulkner, C., 1998. The essence of human–computer interac-tion. Essex, England: Prentice-Hall.

Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognitive monitoring: a new idea ofcognitive development inquiry. American Psychologist,34 (10), 906–911.

Garrison, D.R. and Cleveland-Innes, M., 2005. Facilitatingcognitive presence in online learning: interaction is notenough. The American Journal of Distance Education,19 (3), 133–148.

Hakkinen, P., Jarvela, S., and Byman, A., 2001. Sharing andmaking perspectives in web-based conferencing. In:P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, and K. Hakkarainen, eds.European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collabora-tive Learning: Proceedings of the First European Con-ference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.Maastricht: Maastricht University, 285–292.

Henri, F., 1992. Computer conferencing and contentanalysis. In: A.R. Kaye, ed. Collaborative leaning throughcomputer conferencing. New York: Springer, 115–136.

Jennex, M.E., 2005. Issues in end-user behaviour. In: A.Sarmento, ed. Issues of human–computer interaction.London: IRM Press, 136–151.

Jermann, P. and Dillenbourg, P., 2003. Elaborating newarguments through a CSCL scenario. In: G. Andriessen,M. Baker, and D. Suthers, eds. Arguing to learn:confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborativeenvironments. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer,205–226.

Karat, J., 1982. A model of problem solving with incompleteconstraint knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 14 (4), 538–559.

Karat, J., 1997. Evolving the scope of user-centered design.Communication of the ACM, 40 (7), 33–38.

Lally, V., 2001. Analyzing teaching and learning interactionsin a networked collaborative learning environment: issuesand work in progress [online]. In Euro CSCL 2001 (397–405). Maastricht McLuhan Institute. Available from:http://www.mmi.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/97.doc[Accessed 15 August 2006].

Lin, X., et al., 1999. Designing technology to supportreflection. Educational Technology Research and Devel-opment, 47 (3), 43–62.

Behaviour & Information Technology 401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Mayer, R.E., 2001. Multimedia learning. New York: Uni-versity Cambridge Press.

Messick, S., 1989. Validity. In: R.L. Linn, ed. Educationalmeasurement. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.

Nash, E.B., et al., 2000. A review of presenceand perfor-mance in virtual environments. International Journal ofHuman–Computer Interaction, 12 (1), 1–41.

Nietfeld, J.L., Cao, L., and Osborne, J.W., 2005. Metacog-nitive monitoring accuracy and student performance inthe postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experi-mental Education, 74 (1), 7–28.

Pintrich, P.R., Wolters, C.A., and Baxter, G.P., 2000.Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In:G. Schraw and J.C. Impara, eds. Issues in the measure-ment of metacognition. Lincoln: Buros Institute of MentalMeasurements, 43–97.

Rourke, L., et al., 2001. Methodological issues in the contentanalysis of computer conference transcripts. InternationalJournal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.

Rourke, L. and Anderson, T., 2003. Validity in quantitativecontent analysis [online]. Available from: http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sub/papers.html [Accessed 3 March2005].

Schraw, G., 1998. Promoting general metacognitive aware-ness. Instructional Science, 26 (1–2), 113–125.

Schraw, G., 2000. Assessing metacognition: implications ofthe Buros symposium. In: G. Schraw and J.C. Impara,eds. Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln:Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 297–321.

Schraw, G., 2007. The use of computer-based environmentsfor understanding and improving self-regulation. Meta-cognition Learning, 2 (2–3), 169–176.

Schrire, S., 2006. Knowledge-building in asynchronousdiscussion groups: going beyond quantitative analysis.Computers & Education, 46 (1), 49–70.

Schellens, T., et al., 2007. Learning in asynchronousdiscussion groups: multilevel approach to study theinfluence of student, group and task characteristics.Behavior & Information Technology, 26 (1), 55–71.

Thomas, M.J.W., 2002. Learning within incoherent struc-tures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 18 (3), 351–366.

Tobias, S. and Everson, H., 2000. Assessing metacognitiveknowledge monitoring. In: G. Schraw and J.C. Impara,eds. Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln:Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 147–222.

Varakin, D., et al., 2004. Unseen and unaware: ımplicationsof recent research on failures of visual awareness forhuman–computer ınterface design. Human–ComputerInteraction, 19 (4), 389–422.

Vu, K.L., et al., 2000. Metacognitive processes in human–computer interaction: self-assessments of knowledge aspredictors of computer expertise. International Journal ofHuman–Computer Interaction, 12 (1), 43–71.

Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Wells, G., 1999. Dialogic inquiry: towards a socioculturalpractice and theory of education. Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press.

Yang, S.J.H., 2006. Context aware ubiquitous learningenvironments for peer-to-peer collaborative learning.Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), 188–201.

402 A. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arc

hive

s &

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

LB

] at

12:

18 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014