research-article

Influence of Online and Face-to-face Collaboration and Learning Style on Cognitive Load and Engagement in a Health Introductory Course

Authors:

Cheng-Hsuan Lan,

Meng-Huei Sheng,

Ya-Ming ShiueAuthors Info & Claims

ICMHI '19: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics

Pages 142 - 148

https://doi.org/10.1145/3340037.3340069

Published: 17 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Although collaborative learning has received increasing attention, few studies have examined the differences between online and face-to-face (f2f) collaboration. This study utilized a two-factor experimental design to investigate the influences of collaboration mode (f2f versus online) and learning style on students' cognitive load and engagement. To assess the differences between online and f2f collaboration, cognitive load scale and engagement were collected from two different classes taking the same course at a university in Taiwan. The results show that online collaboration led to a higher cognitive load than that required for f2f collaboration because students have to learn how to use the online collaboration platform. However, online collaboration had higher engagement compared to that for f2f collaboration which represented student were more willing to engage in collaborative technologies. Students who preferred visual learning reported that the use of online collaboration led to less cognitive load and higher sustained attention than that experienced with verbal learning. No significant differences were found related to students' learning style in the f2f collaboration group.

References

[1]

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching skills. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143--157.

[2]

Kieser, A. L., & Golden, F. O. (2009). Using online office applications. Distance Learning, 6(1), 41--46.

[3]

Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Lin, Y. S., & Tasi, C. C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition approach to developing mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowledge in ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 57, 1368--1377.

Digital Library

[4]

Guerra, A., & Bota, J. (2011). Collaborative writing using Google Docs: Insights from writing projects in intermediate French classes. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, 6147--6154.

[5]

Chu, S., Kennedy, D., & Mak, M. (2009). MediaWiki and Google Docs as online collaborative tools for group project co-construction. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Knowledge Management, Hong Kong, China.

[6]

Reed, C. R., Garcia, L. I., Slusser, M. M., Konowitz, S., Yep, J. (2017). Linking essential learning outcomes and interprofessional collaborative practice competency in health science undergraduates. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17, 15--23.

[7]

Chang, Y. J. (2015). The uses and misuses of collaborative distance education technologies: Implications for the debate on transience in technology. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 77--92.

[8]

Basque, J., & Pudelko, B. (2004). The effect of collaborative knowledge modeling at a distance on performance and on learning. In Proceedings of the first International conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, Spain, 2004.

[9]

Siampou, F., Komis, V., & Tselios, N. (2014). Online versus face-to-face collaboration in the context of a computer-supported modeling task. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 369--376.

Digital Library

[10]

Dell, C., Low, C., & Wilher, J. (2010). Comparing student achievement in online and face-to-face class formats. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 30--42.

[11]

Kuo, Y. C., Chu, H. C., & Huang, C. H. (2015). A learning style-based grouping collaborative learning approach to improve EFL students' performance in English courses. Educational Technology and Society, 18(2), 284--298.

[12]

Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 833--846.

[13]

Hsieh, S. W., Jang, Y. R., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Effects of teaching and learning styles on students' refection levels for ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1194--1201.

Digital Library

[14]

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

[15]

Becker, D., & Dwyer, M. (1998). The impact of student verbal/visual learning style preference on implementing groupware in the classroom. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2, 61--69.

[16]

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255--287.

[17]

Simpson, T. J. (1995). Message into medium: An extension of the Dual Coding Theory, The Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, 2--10.

[18]

Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073--1091.

[19]

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-personal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3--43.

[20]

Kalyuga, S., & Plass, J. L. (2009). Evaluating and managing cognitive load in games. Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. New York, NY: Information Science Reference.

[21]

Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning preference and intrinsic motivation. Computers & Education, 55, 1201--1212.

Digital Library

[22]

Kiili, K. (2005). Digital GBL: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 13--24.

[23]

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

[24]

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R.I., & BrÜnken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[25]

Kuljis, J. & Liu, F. (2005). A comparison of learning style theories on the suitability for e-learning. In M. H. Hamza (Ed.), Proceedings of the IASTED Conference on Web-Technologies, Applications, and Services (pp. 191--197). ACTA Press.

[26]

Walji S., Deacon A., Small, J. & Czerniewicz, L. (2016). Learning through engagement: MOOCs as an emergent form of provision. Distance Education, 37(2), 1--16.

[27]

Järvelä, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2014). Designing for Learning: Interest, Motivation, and Engagement. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[28]

Belle, A., Hargraves, R. H. & Najarian, K. (2012). An automated optimal engagement and attention detection system using electrocardiogram. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 1--12.

[29]

Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborate learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490--521.

[30]

Sinha, S., Rogat, T.K., Adams-Wiggins, K.R. & Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2015). Collaborative Group Engagement in a Computer-Supported Inquiry Learning Environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273--307.

[31]

Järvelä, S., Volet, S., & Jarvenojä, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 15--27.

[32]

Järvelä, S., Jarvenojä, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39--51.

[33]

Béres, I., Magyar, T., & Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (2012). Towards a Personalised, Learning Style Based Collaborative Blended Learning Model with Individual Assessment. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 1--28.

[34]

Hadie, S. N. H. & Yusoff, M. S. B. (2016). Assessing the validity of the cognitive load scale in a problem-based learning setting. Journal of Taibah University Medical Science, 11(3), 194--202.

[35]

Popescu, E. (2010). Adaption provisioning with respect to learning styles in a web-based educational system: An experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 243--257.

[36]

Shaw, R. S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58(1), 111--120.

Digital Library

[37]

Federico, P. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 359--379.

[38]

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

[39]

Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles. International Journal on Engineering Education, 21(1), 103--112.

[40]

Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. S., Hung, C. M., & Huang, I. (2013). A learning style perspective to investigate the necessity of developing adaptive learning systems. Educational Technology and Society, 16(2), 188--197.

[41]

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674--681.

[42]

Butler, J. B., Mautz, R. D. (1996). Multimedia presentations and learning: A laboratory experiment. Issues in Accounting Education, 11, 259--281.

[43]

Akdemir, O., & Koszalkab, T. A. (2008). Investigating the relationships among strategies and learning styles in online environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1451--1461.

Digital Library

[44]

Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs in an Out-of-Class Collaborative Writing Activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359--375.

[45]

Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., an GogJeroen, T., Van Merriënboer, J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058--1072

[46]

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 305--312.

[47]

Chen, I. S. (2017). Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating role of learning engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 362--370.

Digital Library

[48]

Tutty, J. I., Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Education Tech Research Development, 56(4), 101--124.

[49]

Wright, S. L. (2015). Examining the impact of collaborative technology skills training on virtual team collaboration effectiveness. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 5(4), 6--13.

[50]

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Eisenmann, T. (2011). Introducing synchronous e-discussions in co-located classrooms: A study on the experiences of 'active' and 'silent' secondary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2169--2177.

Digital Library

[51]

McNamara, J., & Brown, C. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning in online discussion. In Proceeding of the ATN Assessment Conference: Engaging students with assessment, 20-21 November. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia.

Cited By

Krisam CSeitz JKnierim MMaedche A(2025)A Cognitive Load-Adaptive Microbreak Intervention in Video Meeting Systems: First Results from a DSR ProjectInformation Systems and Neuroscience10.1007/978-3-031-71385-9_28(327-335)Online publication date: 3-Mar-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71385-9_28
Zhao LWang ZHuang QPan ZHu D(2022)Differences in cerebral cortical activation between online and offline collaborative innovationProceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI10.1145/3565698.3565783(190-195)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3565698.3565783
Du XDai MTang HHung JLi HZheng J(2022)A multimodal analysis of college students’ collaborative problem solving in virtual experimentation activities: a perspective of cognitive loadJournal of Computing in Higher Education10.1007/s12528-022-09311-835:2(272-295)Online publication date: 29-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09311-8
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Influence of Online and Face-to-face Collaboration and Learning Style on Cognitive Load and Engagement in a Health Introductory Course
1. Information systems
  1. World Wide Web
    1. Web applications
      1. Internet communications tools
        Web conferencing

Recommendations

Online Vs Face-to-face Web-development Course: Course Strategies, Learning, and Engagement
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

To address the increasing enrollment in Computer Science (CS), face-to-face (F2F) courses are often redesigned to online courses. For the success of a large-enrollment online CS class, it is important to design it with effective strategies that can ...
Cognitive Load in Collaboration--Convergence
HICSS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Collaboration is inherent to complex participatory multi-actor and multi-agent social technical systems. Supporting collaboration is challenging. One of the key production factors in collaboration is cognitive effort. Understanding cognitive load ...
Online versus face-to-face collaboration in the context of a computer-supported modeling task

Online synchronous collaboration is contrasted with offline face-to-face collaboration.Online student pairs emphasized analysis and synthesis; they also learnt more.Offline student pairs interacted more strongly and needed more teacher support.Our ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICMHI '19: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics

May 2019

207 pages

ISBN:9781450371995

DOI:10.1145/3340037

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China: University of Electronic Science and Technology of China

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 May 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

ICMHI 2019

ICMHI 2019: The third International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics 2019

May 17 - 19, 2019

Xiamen, China

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
176
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)21
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Krisam CSeitz JKnierim MMaedche A(2025)A Cognitive Load-Adaptive Microbreak Intervention in Video Meeting Systems: First Results from a DSR ProjectInformation Systems and Neuroscience10.1007/978-3-031-71385-9_28(327-335)Online publication date: 3-Mar-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71385-9_28
Zhao LWang ZHuang QPan ZHu D(2022)Differences in cerebral cortical activation between online and offline collaborative innovationProceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI10.1145/3565698.3565783(190-195)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3565698.3565783
Du XDai MTang HHung JLi HZheng J(2022)A multimodal analysis of college students’ collaborative problem solving in virtual experimentation activities: a perspective of cognitive loadJournal of Computing in Higher Education10.1007/s12528-022-09311-835:2(272-295)Online publication date: 29-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09311-8
Chew SNg LChew SNg L(2021)Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_3(27-52)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_3

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten