IV.2.4.1 The interaction between the students’ information commitments and on-line searching tasks on the students’ searching outcomes
This study further examined the interactions between the students’ Information commitments (ICs) and on-line searching tasks on the students’ searching outcomes.
The following three variables were used as predictors in regression models to predict student various on-line searching outcomes (including the extent, the richness, the integratedness, and the total scores of their reports).
(1) on-line searching task group (guided versus un-guided) (2) student ICs
(3) on-line searching task group × ICs (i.e., on-line searching task group multiple ICs)
That is, a total of twenty-four separate regression models (i.e., six scales of ICs multiple four variables regarding on-line searching outcomes) were constructed to predict the students’ four on-line searching outcome variables. Table 4.59-Table 4.64 show the twenty-four regression models. According to the results in Table 4.59-Table 4.64, no statistical interaction between on-line searching task group and student ICs on students’
searching outcomes was found among these twenty-four regression models.
158
Table 4.59: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (multiple sources) and on-line searching activities for their on-line searching outcomes Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -3.78 3.82 -0.61
ICs_multiple sources -0.93 0.75 -0.22 Accuracy
Group × ICs _multiple sources
1.40 0.02
Group -3.46 3.49 -0.61 ICs_multiple sources -0.47 0.69 -0.12 Amount
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.68 0.97 0.43
0.89 0.04
Group -0.37 2.30 -0.10 ICs_multiple sources 0.10 0.46 0.04 Organization
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.32 0.64 0.31
1.10 0.05
Group -7.60 8.75 -0.54 ICs_multiple sources -1.31 1.73 -0.14 Total scores
Group × ICs _multiple sources 1.69 2.43 0.43
0.46 0.02
Table 4.60: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (authority) and on-line searching activities for their on-line searching outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -1.71 3.49 -0.27
ICs_authority -0.09 0.68 -0.02
Accuracy
Group × ICs_authority 0.13 0.93 0.08
0.84 0.04
Group -0.39 3.17 -0.07
SEBs_ certainty 0.04 0.62 0.01 Amount
Group × ICs_authority -0.17 0.84 -0.12
0.71 0.03
Group -0.62 2.09 -0.16
SEBs_ certainty -0.28 0.41 -0.12 Organization
Group × ICs_authority 0.37 0.56 0.38
0.96 0.04
Group -2.72 7.95 -0.19
SEBs_ certainty -0.32 1.55 -0.04 Total scores
Group × ICs_authority 0.33 2.11 0.09
0.26 0.01
160
Table 4.61: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (content) and on-line searching activities for their on-line searching outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -6.13 6.89 -0.98
ICs_content -0.55 1.44 -0.09
Accuracy
Group × ICs_content 1.23 1.71 0.80
1.07 0.05
Group -5.81 6.25 -1.03
ICs_content -1.09 1.31 -0.19
Amount
Group × ICs_content 1.20 1.55 0.87
0.94 0.04
Group -1.98 4.13 -0.53
ICs_content -0.70 0.87 -0.19
Organization
Group × ICs_content 0.68 1.03 0.74
1.01 0.05
Group -13.91 15.69 -0.99
ICs_content -2.34 3.28 -0.17
Total scores
Group × ICs_content 3.10 3.90 0.91
0.47 0.02
Table 4.62: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (technical) and on-line searching activities for their on-line searching outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group 1.52 3.19 0.24
ICs_technical 1.11 0.65 0.27
Accuracy
Group × ICs_technical -0.87 1.03 -0.43
1.89 0.08
Group 2.06 2.92 0.37
ICs_technical 0.88 0.59 0.24
Amount
Group × ICs_technical -0.99 0.94 -0.55
1.46 0.07
Group 0.70 1.95 0.19
ICs_technical 0.28 0.40 0.11
Organization
Group × ICs_technical 0.02 0.63 0.02
1.09 0.05
Group 4.28 7.31 0.31
ICs_technical 2.27 1.48 0.25
Total scores
Group × ICs_technical -1.84 2.35 -0.41
1.06 0.05
162
Table 4.63: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (elaboration) and on-line searching activities for their on-line searching outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -4.54 4.80 -0.73
ICs_elaboration -0.70 0.94 -0.14
Accuracy
Group × ICs_elaboration 0.88 1.27 0.54
1.04 0.05
Group -4.25 4.35 -0.75
ICs_elaboration -0.26 0.85 -0.06
Amount
Group × ICs_elaboration 0.87 1.15 0.59
0.94 0.04
Group -0.90 2.87 -0.24
ICs_elaboration -0.01 0.56 -0.002 Organization
Group × ICs_elaboration 0.44 0.76 0.45
1.03 0.05
Group -9.69 10.92 -0.69
ICs_elaboration -0.96 2.14 -0.08
Total scores
Group × ICs_elaboration 2.20 2.89 0.59
0.45 0.02
Table 4.64: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (match) and on-line searching activities for their on-line searching outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group 0.76 2.76 0.12
ICs_ match 1.43 0.67 0.36 Accuracy
Group × match -0.67 0.96 -0.32
2.86* 0.12
Group 0.58 2.57 0.10
ICs_ match 0.88 0.62 0.24 Amount
Group × match -0.55 0.89 -0.29
1.48 0.07
Group -1.35 1.69 -0.36
ICs_ match -0.02 0.41 -0.01 Organization
Group × match 0.76 0.59 0.60
1.86 0.08
Group -0.02 6.39 -0.001
ICs_ match 2.30 1.55 0.26 Total scores
Group × match -0.46 2.21 -0.10
1.45 0.07
* p < .05
164
IV.2.4.2 The interaction between the students’ information commitments and on-line searching tasks on the students’ cognitive structure outcomes
Also, a total of thirty separate regression models (i.e., six scales of ICs multiple five variables regarding cognitive structure outcomes) were constructed to examine the interaction between the students’ ICs and on-line searching tasks on the students’
cognitive structure outcomes after completing the on-line searching tasks. The following three variables were used as predictors in regression models to predict student various cognitive structure outcomes (including the extent, the richness, and the integratedness of cognitive structures and the usage of “comparing” and “inferring or explaining” information processing modes).
(1) on-line searching task group (guided versus un-guided) (2) student ICs
(3) on-line searching task group × ICs (i.e., on-line searching task group multiple ICs)
The thirty regression models are as shown in Table 4.65-Table 4.70.
Table 4.65: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (multiple sources) and on-line searching activities for the cognitive structure outcomes Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -1.12 2.70 -0.23 ICs_multiple sources 0.66 0.55 0.20 Extent
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.77 0.74 0.57
5.48** 0.20
Group 0.25 2.34 0.06
ICs_multiple sources 0.87 0.47 0.30 Richness
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.34 0.64 0.29
6.24** 0.23
Group 0.15 0.20 0.41
ICs_multiple sources 0.07 0.04 0.29 Integratedness
Group × ICs _multiple sources -0.01 0.06 -0.09
4.09* 0.16
Group 0.09 1.32 0.04
ICs_multiple sources 0.26 0.27 0.17 Comparing
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.16 0.36 0.25
2.83* 0.12
Group 0.89 0.90 0.57
ICs_multiple sources 0.30 0.18 0.28 Inferring or Explaining
Group × ICs _multiple sources -0.10 0.25 -0.24
3.69* 0.15
* p < .05, ** p < .01
166
Table 4.66: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (authority) and on-line searching activities for the cognitive structure outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group 1.61 2.63 0.33
ICs_authority 0.09 0.52 0.03
Extent
Group × ICs_authority -0.05 0.70 -0.04
2.03 0.09
Group 3.61 2.29 0.84
ICs_authority 0.36 0.46 0.14
Richness
Group × ICs_authority -0.63 0.61 -0.57
2.54 0.11
Group 0.16 0.19 0.45
ICs_authority 0.04 0.04 0.17
Integratedness
Group × ICs_authority -0.02 0.05 -0.17
2.52 0.11
Group -0.34 1.22 -0.15
ICs_authority 0.03 0.24 0.02
Comparing
Group × ICs_authority 0.25 0.32 0.43
2.11 0.09
Group -0.56 0.83 -0.36
ICs_authority -0.15 0.17 -0.16
Inferring or Explaining
Group × ICs_authority 0.28 0.22 0.71
2.80* 0.12
* p < .05
Table 4.67: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (content) and on-line searching activities for the cognitive structure outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -5.51 4.88 -1.12
ICs_content 0.48 1.03 0.10
Extent
Group × ICs_content 1.71 1.21 1.44
6.18** 0.23
Group -0.65 4.48 -0.15
ICs_content 0.89 0.93 0.21
Richness
Group × ICs_content 0.47 1.11 0.44
4.23** 0.17
Group 0.26 0.37 0.73
ICs_content 0.13 0.08 0.36
Integratedness
Group × ICs_content -0.04 0.09 -0.47
4.08* 0.16
Group -3.01 2.73 -1.31
ICs_content -0.07 0.50 -0.03
Comparing
Group × ICs_content 0.89 0.59 1.61
3.96* 0.16
Group 1.74 1.63 1.13
ICs_content 0.54 0.34 0.35
Inferring or Explaining
Group × ICs_content -0.33 0.40 -0.87
3.17* 0.13
* p < .05, ** p < .01
168
Table 4.68: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (technical) and on-line searching activities for the cognitive structure outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -0.42 2.38 -0.09
ICs_technical -0.13 0.51 -0.04
Extent
Group × ICs_technical 0.63 0.75 0.41
2.42 0.10
Group 0.85 2.10 0.20
ICs_technical -0.20 0.45 -0.07
Richness
Group × ICs_technical 0.16 0.66 0.12
2.36 0.10
Group 0.20 0.17 0.06
ICs_technical -0.02 0.04 -0.11
Integratedness
Group × ICs_technical 0.03 0.06 0.25
2.23 0.10
Group -0.32 1.11 -0.14
ICs_technical -0.06 0.24 -0.04
Comparing
Group × ICs_technical 0.31 0.35 0.44
2.06 0.09
Group 0.63 0.74 0.40
ICs_technical 0.24 0.16 0.24
Inferring or Explaining
Group × ICs_technical -0.03 0.23 -0.07
3.81* 0.15
* p < .05
Table 4.69: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (elaboration) and on-line searching activities for the cognitive structure outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -2.43 3.63 -0.50
ICs_elaboration -0.16 0.71 -0.04
Extent
Group × ICs_elaboration 1.05 0.96 0.81
2.71 0.11
Group 1.16 3.22 0.27
ICs_elaboration 0.34 0.63 0.10 Richness
Group × ICs_elaboration 0.05 0.85 0.04
2.42 0.10
Group 0.13 0.27 0.38
ICs_elaboration 0.03 0.05 0.10 Integratedness
Group × ICs_elaboration -0.01 0.70 -0.07
2.24 0.10
Group -0.58 1.71 -0.25
ICs_elaboration 0.04 0.34 0.02 Comparing
Group × ICs_elaboration 0.32 0.45 0.53
1.99 0.09
Group 0.06 1.18 0.04
ICs_elaboration -0.03 0.23 -0.02
Inferring or Explaining
Group × ICs_elaboration 0.11 0.31 0.27
2.26 0.10
170
Table 4.70: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (match) and on-line searching activities for the cognitive structure outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -1.12 2.11 -0.28
ICs_match -0.58 0.53 -0.19
Extent
Group × ICs_match 0.93 0.72 0.57
2.72 0.12
Group -1.62 1.84 -0.37
ICs_match -0.64 0.46 -0.24
Richness
Group × ICs_match 1.05 0.63 0.73
3.20* 0.13
Group -0.18 0.15 -0.55
ICs_match -0.06 0.04 -0.26
Integratedness
Group × ICs_match 0.10 0.05 0.90*
3.45* 0.15
Group -0.95 0.98 -0.42
ICs_match -0.39 0.25 -0.28
Comparing
Group × ICs_match 0.56 0.33 0.74
2.82* 0.12
Group -0.21 0.67 -0.14
ICs_match -0.10 0.17 -0.11
Inferring or Explaining
Group × ICs_match 0.26 0.23 0.49
2.93* 0.12
* p < .05
Among these thirty regression models, a statistical interaction between on-line searching task group and student SEBs was only found in the following regression model:
(1) Model predicting the integratedness of student cognitive structures by examining the interaction between on-line searching task group and students scores on the “match” scale of ICs
It indicated that, the students more tending to use the “match” searching strategy obtained more integrated cognitive structures after completing the guided on-line searching task, while those, who were less oriented to use the “match” searching strategy, displayed more integrated cognitive structures after completing the
un-guided on-line searching task. It seems that students using the “match” searching strategy frequently benefited more from the guided on-line searching task. The interaction mentioned above is shown as Figure 4.6.
The scores on the “match” scale of information commitments
Low High
Integratedness of cognitive structures
High Low
Figure 4.6: The interaction between information commitments (match) and on-line searching task on the integratedness of student cognitive structures
Guided on-line searching task group
Un-guided on-line searching task group
172
IV.2.4.3 The interaction between the students’ information commitments and on-line searching tasks on the students’ informal reasoning outcomes
Finally, a total of thirty separate regression models (i.e., six scales of ICs
multiple five variables regarding informal reasoning outcomes) were also constructed to examine the interaction between the students’ ICs and on-line searching tasks on the student informal reasoning outcomes after completing the on-line searching tasks.
The following three variables were used as predictors in regression models to predict student various informal reasoning outcomes, including supportive argument
construction, counter-argument construction, rebuttal construction, the total number of arguments proposed, and the total number of reasoning modes).
(1) on-line searching task group (guided versus un-guided) (2) student ICs
(3) on-line searching task group × ICs (i.e., on-line searching task group multiple ICs)
The thirty regression models are as shown in Table 4.71-Table 4.76.
Table 4.71: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (multiple sources) and on-line searching activities for the informal reasoning outcomes Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -0.49 0.51 -0.56
ICs_multiple sources -0.02 0.10 -0.03 Supportive
argument
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.20 0.14 0.84
2.71 0.11
Group -0.71 0.60 -0.71
ICs_multiple sources -0.23 0.12 -0.34 Counter-argument
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.23 0.17 0.84
1.56 0.07
Group -1.41 0.65 -1.29*
ICs_multiple sources -0.19 0.13 -0.26 Rebuttal
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.41 0.18 1.37*
1.87 0.08
Group -2.61 1.27 -1.20*
ICs_multiple sources -0.44 0.26 -0.30 Total number of
arguments
Group × ICs _multiple source 0.85 0.35 1.42*
2.78* 0.12
Group -0.70 0.78 -0.53
ICs_multiple sources -0.16 0.16 -0.18 Total number of
reasoning modes
Group × ICs _multiple sources 0.28 0.21 0.78
1.80 0.08
* p < .05
174
Table 4.72: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (authority) and on-line searching activities for the informal reasoning outcomes
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group 0.65 0.48 0.73
ICs_authority 0.03 0.10 0.07
Supportive argument
Group × ICs_authority -0.12 0.13 -0.52
1.74 0.08
Group 0.72 0.54 0.71
ICs_authority -0.06 0.11 -0.09
Counter-argument
Group × ICs_authority -0.16 0.14 -0.61
2.14 0.09
Group 0.79 0.61 0.72
ICs_authority 0.15 0.12 0.24
Rebuttal
Group × ICs_authority -0.20 0.16 -0.72
0.66 0.03
Group 2.15 1.17 0.99
ICs_authority 0.13 0.23 0.12
Total number of arguments
Group × ICs_authority -0.47 0.31 -0.86
1.80 0.08
Group 0.38 0.72 0.29
ICs_authority 0.04 0.14 0.05
Total number of reasoning modes
Group × ICs_authority -0.02 0.19 -0.07
1.23 0.06
Table 4.73: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (content) and on-line searching activities for the informal reasoning outcomes in the post-test
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -0.10 0.96 -0.12
176
Table 4.74: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (technical) and on-line searching activities for the informal reasoning outcomes in the post-test
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group 0.28 0.44 0.32
Table 4.75: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (elaboration) and on-line searching activities for the informal reasoning outcomes in the post-test
Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group -0.85 0.65 -0.96
ICs_ elaboration -0.05 0.13 -0.07 Supportive
argument
Group × ICs_ elaboration 0.29 0.17 1.24
2.93* 0.12
Group -0.98 0.76 -0.98
ICs_ elaboration -0.31 0.15 -0.37*
Counter-argument
ICs_ elaboration -0.30 0.32 -0.17 Total number of
178
Table 4.76: Regression model testing the predictors of the interaction between students’ ICs (match) and on-line searching activities for the informal reasoning outcomes in the post-test Dependent variable Predicting variables B S.E. β F value R2
Group 0.56 0.37 0.65
ICs_match -0.03 0.09 -0.06
Supportive
ICs_match -0.04 0.13 -0.07
Rebuttal
Group × ICs_match 0.04 0.17 0.10
0.06 0.003
Group 0.71 0.93 0.33
ICs_match -0.19 0.23 -0.14
Total number of arguments
Group × ICs_match -0.14 0.32 -0.20
1.51 0.07
Group 0.50 0.57 0.38
ICs_match -0.06 0.14 -0.07
Total number of reasoning modes
Group × ICs_match -0.08 0.20 -0.19
1.44 0.06
Among these thirty regression models, a statistical interaction between on-line searching task group and student SEBs was only found in the following regression model:
(1) Model predicting the total number of arguments by examining the
interaction between on-line searching task group and students scores on the
“multiple sources” scale of ICs
It implies that, the students more tend to use multiple sources as the evaluative standards for the correctness of Web materials, were prone to propose more
arguments in the guided on-line searching task, while those, who were more oriented to use multiple sources as the evaluative standards for the correctness of Web
materials, were more prone to generate more arguments in un-guided on-line searching task. It seems that students using “multiple sources” as the evaluative standards for the correctness of Web materials benefit more from the guided on-line searching task on the total number of arguments they are able to propose. The interaction mentioned above is shown as Figure 4.7.
The scores on the “multiple sources” scale of ICs
Low High
The total number of arguments
LargeSmall
Figure 4.7: The interaction between information commitments (multiple sources) and on-line searching task on the total number of arguments
Guided on-line searching task group
Un-guided on-line searching task group
180
IV.3. Summarization of the findings derived from the two Phases
IV.3.1 Summarization of the findings derived from the informal reasoning