Developmental
Learning Theory of the Internet
Research
Report: Learning To Become Internet Literate
Dr. Leon James, Instructor: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/leon.html
Instructions for this report
are at: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy18/g18research.html
___________________________________________________________________________
This paper is the product of
a cyclical process of development that will focus on presenting the numerous
facets of acquiring Internet literacy.
It will explore the published works of three former generational
students, introduce my own research data and compare it to that of a G17
student, summarize a published article by Dr. Leon James on creating online
learning environments, and define information literacy. Each of these sections will be presented
separately throughout the paper but please keep in mind that they are in fact
interwoven and intended to culminate at an understanding of the theories
proposed by Dr. James and myself.
Learning the intricate complexities of
the Internet is no different than attempting to solve the eternal mystery of
women. Both require enormous amounts of
patience, both are phased learning processes, which usually begin with the
pressing desire to quit, and just when you think you’ve figured it all out
something new pops up and you’re back where you started.
In the following section, three papers of previous Generational students of Dr. James’ 409 and 459 classes were reviewed in an attempt to point out the similar developmental phases in learning they all shared. Together, the developmental phases make up a four-step process that illustrates the growth students endure throughout the course of a college semester. These phases will be referred to as (1) Uncertainty and Frustration, (2) Clarity and Motivation, (3) Mastery, and (4) Reflection.
Michelle
Alonzo "Developmental Patterns for Learning the Internet" (409)
Michelle admits that while having a
very difficult time in the beginning, eventually learning how to use the
Internet effectively gave her a great sense of accomplishment and self-worth.
(1)
Uncertainty
and Frustration
“…And we become angry at ourselves, the computer
terminals, the teacher, and just the world!”
“There were times when I felt like throwing the
computer terminal on the ground because it wasn’t doing what it was supposed to
do”
“You feel like quitting, dropping the class, or
just plain indulging in chocolate ice cream!”
(2)
Clarity
and Motivation
“When you find that your page is starting to come
out the way you want it to, you feel a little spark of confidence that can
probably help you to go further”
“Once you see your potential, you feel like you
want to do more and even try new things on the Internet.”
(3)
Mastery
“The fact that you overcame the whole process is
a great feeling.”
“It gives you the feeling that you can do almost
anything if you persevere.”
(4)
Reflection
“The worst thing you can do is wait till the last
minute”
“If you wait until the reports are due, you won’t
make it unless you go 24 hours without sleeping”
“And if you wait to do all reports at one time,
you won’t make it!”
Carol
N. Ohta "My Adapting to the Internet" (409)
Carol’s point of view of learning the Internet was very easy to relate to as she admits to walking into class the first day with no prior knowledge of the workings of e-mail much less the Internet.
(1)
Uncertainty
and Frustration
“I felt lost and confused because I didn’t
understand a word he was saying.”
“I was scared and unsure of myself but I did it
anyway.”
“When I started to make the files I didn’t know
where to start or where to go. I was a
complete basket case.”
“I got stuck and freaked out because I had
screwed up I didn’t know what to do.”
“I went home many times and yelled at everyone
because I was irritated, frustrated, and tired.”
(2)
Clarity
and Motivation
“Hey not so bad and I’m still surviving this
class.”
“I couldn’t believe it, I had finished one file”
“I’m starting to feel good about the Internet and
the computer world because I’ve learned how to look up information and create
my files.”
(3)
Mastery
“I learned to overcome my resistance to achieve a
new experience in my life.”
“I found that this computer technology is easier
than looking up information in the library.”
(4)
Reflection
“I’m so shocked that I came from knowing nothing
about this computer age and wanting to drop this class, to getting so much mote
than I ever imagined to achieve in this course.”
“I learned that my resistance to the knowledge of
computers was connected to my resistance to learn a new information gathering
system.”
Ryan
Mitsui “Learning the Internet” (459)
Ryan’s point of view of learning the Internet is somewhat
skewed from the previous two students in that as I read his report he gives the
impression that he has already mastered the skills in a previous class and
writes mainly of other students’ learning processes. He says that learning the Internet was simple once he learned the
relevant steps but fails to give any mention of his own trials and tribulations. You will not find the same comments of
frustration as seen in the previous two reports.
(1)
Uncertainty
and Frustration
“Learning the Internet can be quite difficult in
the beginning.”
“At first putting up a page is really confusing because
you can’t just type exactly what you want, there’s all sorts of rules and mark
up tags that you have to learn.”
(2)
Clarity
and Motivation
“If you take time to read them it’s kinda’ good
to know that other people have done it and are going through the same despair
as you are and have succeeded.”
(3)
Mastery
“But once you get all that down it’s pretty easy!”
(4)
Reflection
“My advise to you is to just keep at it and don’t
put it off till later!”
“You’d be surprised how little time you have to do
all of your reports.”
Uncertainty and Frustration: This is the beginning of the learning process where students become aware of the predicament they have gotten themselves into. Characterized by a general sense of uneasiness, students commonly express their doubts and concerns about this novel information gathering system (the Internet) during this phase. They are exposed to new terminology and complicated tasks which are compounded by numerous projects implicitly dependent upon a working knowledge of such. Students play host to an inner battle where the defeated will succumb to the temptation to quit by dropping the class. And the victorious will persist subjecting themselves to countless nights of humiliating agony that gains them the knowledge to progress to the next stage of development.
Clarity and Motivation: Having fought their ways
through the initial stage, students unfortunately find out that frustration is
a formidable foe that it resistant to concede.
However, the defining moment of this phase is when students experience
an epiphany, or realization of sorts brought on by some form of success. This success can come in the form of
completing a web page or perhaps solving the intricate nature of FTP
uploading. Whatever the case, something
acts as a catalyst that brings everything together for the first time. Even though their skills are now only
partially honed it is at this point that students believe they can defeat the
undefeatable and are capable of “seeing the light” at the end of the
semester. Having tasted the sweetness
of first accomplishment, students are granted the confidence and motivation to
continue on to the next phase.
Mastery: The fight for Internet literacy is over and what
are left is battle-hardened warriors apt in the ways of the information
gathering. Frustration lay at the
wayside and the travelers of the information superhighway are now competent
individuals who can efficiently get from point A to point B without wanting to
inflict bodily harm to their instructor in the process. This phase is indicative of a student that
can now complete the tasks that were laid before him or her at the onset of the
semester, and more importantly could guide someone of a lesser caliber to do
the same.
Reflection: In any learning process the ability to look back
on the experience and constructively evaluate its method is an inherent
stage. The Reflection phase marks the
end in the developmental learning theory of the Internet and requires students
to critique their mode of acquiring information literacy as well as to draw
their own conclusions about learning.
In retrospect students will acknowledge shortcomings and techniques that
hindered and aided them during the semester.
This self-critique has dual benefit implications. One benefit is to the student that can learn
from his/her own mistakes. Another
is to the students that follow, who can vicariously learn through the
experiences of those who came before them.
In molding the phases of
this theory I took into consideration my own personal experience as a 409
victim as well as the three aforementioned Generational students. A four-stage process in which students
entered as apprentices and exited as journeymen could summarize the emerging
patterns I noticed. As I have yet to
complete this semester and in fact have one remaining project left, I
originally considered only making it a three-stage process (Uncertainty &
Frustration, Clarity & Motivation, and Mastery). This was in light of the fact that I still have the potential to
regress from the mastery phase of development and therefore cannot offer a
complete reflection of my experiences as a learner. This shows that the progression through the phases of development
is not a one-way street but instead a four-way intersection in which the
converging stages meet to represent the developed student. However, the path of the student is not a
set one and there is always the potential for making a wrong turn along the way
or even remaining idle on a certain street.
I relate to the theory in this aspect in that I am remaining idle in the
Mastery Phase until such time that I either complete this journey and am no
longer hesitant to reflect, or regress in some fashion and find myself
referring to a map for directions.
The Reflection Phase was
then solely included on the basis of the three Generational students’
work. They all seemed to make valuable
statements about what they learned about themselves and the process of
achieving Internet literacy. I felt these statements couldn’t be categorized
into the other three phases but needed to be included nonetheless.
The dynamic nature of the
Internet leads me to believe that one will always be a student in a phase of
development. The Mastery Phase can then
be said to be dependent upon one’s familiarity with a given software
program. As the field of software
programming is highly competitive and constantly restructuring and updating,
one will always have to learn new skills and inevitably become a student all
over again. This does not necessarily
mean that one will find themselves back in the Uncertainty and Frustration
Phase of development as many functions of programs remain constant and only
certain features need to be learned. However
it is possible. As Ryan Mitsui writes,
“If you are a novice like me don’t worry, you know what they say, once
you’ve learned to ride a bike you never forget!” Contrary to Ryan’s
consensus, I tend to believe that these types of skills are not stored in the
permanent memory banks and if one does not implement them they will deteriorate
as the timeline moves to the right.
The reason a student decides
to persist through the initial phase of development is relative to each
individual. For me it was a reluctance
to admit defeat by giving up while others persevered. I have the mentality that if you can do it, so can I. It was this type of attitude that got me
through the temptation to drop the class and so long as someone else had the gonads
to show up every week then I was intent to do the same. But as for the reasons my peers stuck it
out, I am not at liberty to say.
Students have their own personal reasons for hanging on and I feel these
reasons speak loudly of their efficacy levels.
While the affective behavior each student exhibits is highly relative,
the cognitive and sensorimotor behaviors are not.
Students generally pass
through the same sequence of events as they gain Internet literacy and this
shows a consistent behavior pattern both in the cognitive and sensorimotor
domains. This consistency is perhaps a
result of group conformity or possibly the structure of the generational
curriculum itself. Whichever the case,
direct causal relationships are difficult to formulate and cannot be derived
from the data collected here. However
generalizations can be drawn from the testimonials given by prior generational
students. All the students seemed to take
with them a better working knowledge of the key tasks laid before them at the
onset of the semester. We can only
assume that a better working knowledge will serve as a basis for greater
information literacy and competency.
There is also consistency in
how the development of generational students fit into the tri-phased pattern
proposed by Dr. James. To even publish
a report online requires a student to overcome the external elements of the
task (phase 1), adapt autonomous learning habits (phase 2), and assume their
place as a member of a generational community which will serve as a reference
for their successors (phase 3).
The first of the four
following links will lead you to a directory of ten forms representing the bulk
of my on-line research for this paper.
Each form represents one week of research and consists of a series of
questions that were completed before and after the on-line research was
completed. The second link will lead
you to the instructions that were given to each Generational student on how to
fill out the forms. The third link will
assist in shedding some light on how we gathered our data by taking you to the
Forum instructions. The Forum
discussions were a weekly requirement where Generational students would have
community discussions about their weekly research topics. After completing six weeks of on-line
research about the selected topics of our choice, students were to complete a
Bibliography Report and the instructions for this report can be found with the
fourth and final link.
Please explore these links before going any further
as they will offer some insight into the heavy weight Generational students had
to bear.
1. My Forms
4. Bibliography
Report Instructions
Hopefully by now you have
explored the links above, if not it behooves you to do so now. As I mentioned before, each week we had to
complete on-line research to fulfill the requirements of this class, which
sounds easy enough right? Wrong! Weekly research was very time consuming and
tedious to say the least. Allow me to
narrate you through my weekly research routine.
First I would always go to the Forum
discussions and see what other students were researching to one: get some
inspiration, and two: fulfill the weekly requirement of responding to someone
else’s posting. With me so far? Good.
Then if not yet inspired to research a given topic, I would refer to the
Forum instructions that list the fifteen possible topics we could choose
from. Having now made a selection, I
would open a new form file and fill out part one and two. Now I was free to actually perform the
research by using a search engine of my choice (usually Google.com). Once I found an adequate amount of material
I would reopen the form file and complete part three. The last step in my routine was to return to the Forum
discussions and post my research findings.
All of that would usually take me
about four hours to accomplish. Sounds
like fun huh? Speaking of fun, let me
say that filling out the form every stinkin’ week was by far the most enjoyable
experience of this class if not my entire college career. The whole irony of it all was that one of
the first questions on the Form was what kind of mood are you in. By the second time I had to fill that thing
out I was in a bad mood because of the form.
So if you read my forms they’re not an accurate indicator of my mood at
the time of filling them out because I would always record the mood I was in before
I started. If I didn’t do this I would
have skewed the results by having ones across the board.
The data collected in the
forms can be an excellent tool in gauging one’s self-efficacy towards web
research. It’s not so useful in making
one Internet literate but its worth is obvious in the field of
self-efficacy. A lot of the questions
concerned one’s belief or prediction of the research outcome. Questions like these make direct conclusions
about relationships between self-efficacy and web research possible. Whether or not this information is valuable
to system designers and search engine administrators is uncertain as they exert
little control over the self-efficacy levels of their customers. However they might be interested in how
users of differing efficacy levels rated their search engines. Perhaps then software could be designed to
cater to a wider spectrum of Internet literacy.
Question Range Average
This table was created to summarize the data
collected from the forms. This table is
intended to help illustrate patterns or trends in my Internet research and only
includes those questions that involved numbered ratings.
Excluded from the table is the
summaries of questions 25 and 26, both of which I fell worthy of mention. Question 25 was the only multiple-choice
question and asks the user which factor was most influential in getting search
results. The choices were (a) luck, (b)
my search techniques, or (c) the quality of the search engines I used. My findings on this question were that it
was a toss-up between my own search techniques and the quality of the search
engines I used. Question number 26 asks
if throughout the course of the search did I change my goals. Interestingly all ten searches were answered
with the same answer, no.
I was unable to recognize any
significant patterns from the data but was able to see some interesting
comparisons between part one of the form (questions 1-15) and part three
(16-28) that point to my realistic cognitive nature. Questions 6 and 24 both had to do with time comparisons and for
the most part they matched up pretty closely with only a 0.8 difference between
the two. Questions 9 and 27 had to do
with the success of the session and they were only separated by a difference of
1.4. Questions 14 and 21 had to do with
the relevancy of the sources found to the topic choice and they were also
pretty close with a difference of 0.6.
And lastly, questions 15 and 20 were both concerned with effort of the
search session and had a difference of 1.4.
These differences show that I would always slightly overestimate the
amount of time and effort that the search session was going to require and
slightly underestimated the relevancy of the sources I would later find.
Affectively, I tend to believe that I have a pretty healthy
attitude as a searcher. If you refer
back to the table you will see that questions 8 thru 12 and 16 thru 19 are all
affective measurements, with the first set measuring positive emotions and the
second gauging negative emotions. For
the first set of questions I rate myself moderately high with a range of 7.1-
9.2 indicating that I’m an overall confident searcher. For the second set of questions I rate
myself lowly with a range of 1.1- 5.3 which indicates that I was hardly ever
bothered by negative emotional states during my searches.
My sensorimotor information behavior
was measured by questions 22, 23 and 28.
Questions 22 and 23 indicate that (1) I fully support the search engines
I implemented and (2) I was able to use them somewhat easily. Question 28 is self-explanatory and could be
considered a measure of how quickly, or slowly, I was able to complete the
session.
I feel that some of the questions
could have been left out of the forms in order to make them more concise and
less redundant. Questions 10 and 13
were namely the most redundant of all the questions and should have been
included on only the first form and disregarded thereafter. Question 11 was invalid because there are
some users like myself that don’t believe in luck making it difficult to answer
honestly. And then there’s question 19
that rates the amount of rage the searcher had during the search. At first I couldn’t imagine someone ever
getting to the point of rage until I read some of the previous
generations. I now realize the
applicability of this question.
There are no differences between the
information provided about myself in the numbers and the explanations. The two are reflections of each other and
the explanations only serve to further define the numeric rating. As I mentioned earlier, the form could stand
to drop a few questions in order to make it less time consuming and more user
friendly.
I used a total of three different search engines during the course of my research and I don’t have a qualm about any of them. I used Google, Ask Jeeves and MSN, all of which got me exactly what I was looking for. My conclusion about my information behavior is that I have actually developed a pretty good one. I feel I have acquired a set of abilities that will enable me to recognize the need for information, effectively gather and evaluate information, and competently apply the needed information. Applying Dr. James’ threefold self to my information behavior, I would say that within the affective domain lay my confidence as a searcher stemming from the belief that I can accomplish anything I set my mind to. Within the cognitive domain is my expanding knowledge of newly acquired computer skills. And within the sensorimotor domain is my application of these skills that I implement in college and work environments.
For my G17 comparison I
chose the work of Kevin Ogata whose paper can be accessed here. The similarities of the format and the
content between our papers are clearly evident. It was actually comforting and assuring to read his paper and
know that mine isn’t too far off. We
actually both chose some of the same Generational students to review and
selected some of the same quotations to illustrate their development. However I did notice that G18’s research
paper is a little more comprehensive and in-depth than its predecessor. What really sets us apart is the requirement
for G18 to repetitively demonstrate an understanding of the threefold self.
The following section is my attempt to
summarize an article published by Dr. Leon James in 1997 entitled, Creating
An Online Learning Environment That Fosters Information Literacy, Autonomous
Learning and Leadership: The Hawaii Online Generational Community-Classroom. As any Generational student of his knows,
Dr. James is an expert in his field and can at times lay the technical jargon
on pretty thick. My unelaborated
summary does not do his work justice so I invite you to read his paper at your
own leisure here.
Dr. James article is basically an
overview of his generational approach towards having students teach themselves
within the confines of an online environment.
Started in the 1970s, Dr. James instituted college courses in which a
collective body of work (originally written papers) from his pioneering
students would serve as a reference for generations to come. Each successive generation would in turn
augment this body of work creating a snowball effect that has eventually grown
into a massive network of interrelated ideas and topics. The intention of Dr. James was to have each
generation learn from the previous one at the same time leaving behind a body
of work that would assist in teaching the next. By 1997, the online curriculum was in its fifth generation and
the printed versions from generations of the 1970s and 80s were in the process
of being transferred to computer format.
The curriculum of the classes had now advanced to the point where
students were responsible for integrating complex computer skills into weekly
assignments and projects. For many
students like myself this was a completely new experience that would harness
entry-level computer knowledge into that of a more developed craftsman.
The online generational approach can be applied across varying
educational levels and institutional settings although Dr. James warns that administrators
and instructors will experience frustration due to the additional demands. Administrators and instructors will have to
be up to date on software and web design and have to adjust to surmounting
duties. However, he does confess that
the payoff in the end is highly worthwhile the time and effort.
In the same way that I proposed a
four-phased developmental theory earlier in this paper, Dr. James proposes a
three-phased theory. Although I like
mine better I should probably attempt to explain his anyway. To put it in layman’s terms Dr. James
proposes a progressive development pattern broken up into three phases. The first phase is where students become
familiar with their new learning environment by identifying themselves as a
part of the generation and becoming information literate. The second phase requires a more interactive
effort from students as they attempt to become more independent and
self-sufficient as learners. Phase
three is marked by students’ desire to become a contributor to the community by
continuing to learn for personal gain.
This is similar to helping others while helping yourself, everyone
benefits in the end.
Within the context of each
developmental phase Dr. James attaches the notion of a threefold self
consisting of an affective, cognitive and sensorimotor domain. The affective domain can be considered the
realm of feeling and emotion where motivation, goals and values are
derived. The cognitive domain pertains
to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as
contrasted with the emotional processes of the affective domain. Within this domain reside ones beliefs and
knowledge. The sensorimotor domain is
responsible for the motor activity caused by sensory stimuli and is the domain
where measurements are commonly applied.
As each student progresses through the three phases of development
(identification, modeling, leadership) they will also exhibit or accomplish
skills pertaining to the three domains (affective, cognitive, sensorimotor). This concept is further explained in a
separate section of Dr. James’ article, which can be accessed here.
Dr. James then closes his article with
explanations of five principles that he believes online curriculums can
foster. The first principle is his
value of hyperlink as a learning resource.
It is very common of Dr. James to require his students to create links
within their documents to other already published ones. By doing this he forces students to read the
works of their cohorts and also to contribute to the ever expanding “snowball”
that generational curriculums create. The
second principle involves creating community-type groups out of students who can
constructively assist each other in the learning process. The third denotes three different types of
learning skills students will take with them after course completion including
information literacy, scientific and scholarly, and leadership and citizenship
skills. The fourth principle is the
creations of cyberspace-learning environments where generational students can
help each other overcome their uncertainties and confusions about computer
technology.
The fifth and final principle has to do with Dr.
James’ subtle technique of torturing his students. The instructions for his papers are similar to what I imagine the
blueprints for a nuclear fission bomb to look like. The directions for his papers are steps within steps within yet
some more steps. While his intentions
are to promote positive outcomes, the directions are usually set up in a way
that will most definitely cause you to overlook something or worse yet drive
you to the point where you’ll want to take the easy way out, omission. Take a look for yourself at the directions
for this paper here.
After reading Dr. James’ article I can see how my report falls into his three-phased approach towards learning. This report represents the
The most accurate and concise
definition for information literacy I could find on the Web can be accessed here. This site offered by the American Library
Association (ALA) defines information literacy as a set of skills enabling one
to recognize the need for information in a certain context and being able to
gather and apply the desired information correctly.