Post on 16-May-2023
High school students’ experiences of learningthrough research on the Internetjcal_412 503..515
R.A. Ellis,* P. Goodyear,† A.-M. Bliuc* & M. Ellis‡*Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia†Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia‡NSW Department of Education and Training, Government of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract One of the challenges that school educators face today is the need to integrate learning tech-nologies into the learning experience in a meaningful and sustainable way. The current researchfocuses on how students’ experience learning through new technologies in high schools acrossNew South Wales, Australia, specifically when they learn by researching through the Internet.Open-ended questionnaires were administered to over 300 high school students to explore theirconceptions of learning through research on the Internet, approaches to learning throughresearch on the Internet, and approaches to integrating various sources of knowledge. Students’descriptions of their learning experiences show qualitative variation in their conceptions andapproaches to using the Internet in their learning, variation that is reflected in their academicperformance. Our analysis suggests that the experience of learning through research on theInternet is highly relational, a finding that emphasizes the importance of integration of varioussources of knowledge both for student approaches to learning and for teacher approaches todesigning learning tasks.
Keywords approaches to learning, conceptions of learning, Internet research, student learning experience.
Introduction
School education in Australia, like the rest of the world,faces continuing challenges in a number of key areas forstudents and teachers. These challenges include main-taining high standards of learning in the classroom, pro-viding sustainable and relevant support for teachers intheir professional development as educationalists, andfinancing these through a responsible and sustainableapproach. A key aspect related to all of these areas is theintroduction of learning technologies into the learningand teaching experience.
In response to the need for an integration of learningtechnologies to support the high school student experi-
ence in Australia, the New South Wales (NSW) Depart-ment of Education and Training has engaged in a rangeof strategies to support the integration of learning tech-nologies in classroom teaching and learning programs.Strategies for departmental schools include the rolloutof e-mail to all students, increased bandwidth, theConnected Classrooms initiative that is placing a video-conference facility and interactive whiteboard in allschools, and, in conjunction with the federal govern-ment, the Digital Education Revolution NSW that will,over 4 years, provide all students in Years 9–12 withtheir own laptop. While such infrastructure is essentialfor an increasingly innovative and modern approach tolearning and teaching, not much is known about howsuch technologies are shaping the student experience oflearning, particularly about the intentions underpinningstudents’ use of the technologies or variation in thestrategies that they adopt.
Accepted: 9 December 2010Correspondence: Robert A. Ellis, Institute for Teaching and Learning,University of Sydney, G12 Building, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.Email: robert.ellis@sydney.edu.au
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00412.x
Original article
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2011), 27, 503–515 503
This study offers an in-depth investigation of thestudent experience of learning when students arerequired to engage in research on the Internet as part oftheir learning tasks. This focus was chosen after exten-sive consultation with over 100 teachers in schools rightacross the state of NSW in Australia. Most schoolsreported that this was an increasingly common andlegitimate strategy for teachers to design a learningactivity for students that required them to use, at least inpart, some research they conducted on the Internet.Teachers reasoned that while this was an increasinglycommon part of the student experience, little wasknown about how students went about searching for rel-evant knowledge on the Internet, what strategies theyadopted, why they adopted those strategies, and whatthey thought they were supposed to be learning byengaging in such activities.
Prior research
The use of computers and learning through Internetresearch in schools is a phenomenon that has beenoccurring simultaneously in many countries around theworld over the last 10 years. In the following review ofkey studies, only those whose population sample hadcompleted some research on the Internet for their learn-ing tasks are included.
Some studies into school student use of the Internethave revealed a greater student awareness of ‘ease ofuse’, and less about innovative learning tasks andmeaningful engagement. In Canada, 450 secondarystudents from two urban schools and from two ruralschools were asked about their expectations of comput-ers in the support of their learning. A key outcome fromthe study was that while 73% of students appreciatedthe efficacy of information and communication tech-nology (ICT)-supported processes, only 33% com-mented on the benefits from a more varied pedagogyarising from the introduction of activities such asInternet-based research (Li 2007). In Victoria, Austra-lia, research into the student experience of ICT in sevenschools was conducted. It involved student observa-tions in class as well as 32 semi-structured interviews.While acknowledging the potential value for ICT intheir learning, the students noted that a significant partof their experience with computers often resulted inregurgitation of information, rather than a more mean-ingful engagement (Healey 2005).
Other studies have looked at how prevalent informa-tion from the Internet is in the students’ approach toschool tasks and issues to do with the quality of thatinformation. In Washington DC, USA, over 750 stu-dents between the ages of 12 and 17 were surveyedabout their use of the Internet for school research.Seventy-one per cent of the students said that it tendedto be the major source of information for their schoolprojects and reports (Lenhart et al. 2001). In a studyconducted in North Carolina, more than 2000 studentsfrom grades six, seven, and eight were surveyed.Eighty-six per cent indicated that they tended to use theInternet to find information for their school tasksinstead of looking at their school books (Spires et al.2008).
In the United Kingdom, research investigated wherestudents use the Internet and for what purpose. Over1500 students were surveyed. More than 90% said thatthey used it predominately at school. Around 38% ofthe students indicated that they were mistrustful of thequality of information that they might discover on theInternet in their learning. Only 33% of those who usedthe Internet quite frequently said that they had beentaught how to judge the reliability of information inclass (Livingstone & Bober 2005).
This study builds on and adds to the earlier researchby investigating the different ways that students inschools in NSW, Australia think about learning throughresearch on the Internet, what strategies they adopt, andwhy they adopt those strategies. The researchers feltthat a key omission in the literature on the schoolstudent experience was the identification of qualita-tively different approaches to integrating sources ofknowledge for school tasks. Consequently, studentapproaches to integrating knowledge from differentsources are investigated, and key associations betweenqualitatively different strategies, ways of thinkingabout research on the Internet, and student achievementas indicated by marks are a key outcome of the studydescribed as follows.
Theoretical framework
In this study, the student experience of learning is inves-tigated using an approach known as phenomenography(Marton & Booth 1997). This approach to investigatingstudent experiences of learning has been used in schoolcontexts in a number of studies (Watkins & Akande
504 R.A. Ellis et al.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1994; Berry & Sahlberg 1996; Marton et al. 1997; Dartet al. 2000; Cano 2005).
Phenomenography offers a recursive model to inves-tigate the student experience of learning, one that allowsmeanings to be unpacked from interrelated concepts. Itsuggests that at a high level of description, the studentexperience of learning can be usefully understood aswhat the students think they are learning, their concep-tions, and how they go about their learning, theirapproaches (Prosser & Trigwell 1999). Each of thesecan be unpacked further. Student conceptions of learn-ing have a referential aspect, those aspects that revealthe meaning of the parts of the concept, and structuralaspects, which are its parts. Student approaches tolearning can be divided into what students do whilelearning, their strategies, and why they do those things,their intentions.
A key feature of research into student learning inhigher education is an ability to identify qualitativelydifferent experiences of learning by students. Studieshave found that not all students report the same qualityof conceptions of learning. Some report cohesive con-ceptions, those that are strongly related to learning andunderstanding, and some report fragmented or multi-structural conceptions, those that separate an awarenessof the development of understanding as the core oftheir concept (Prosser & Trigwell 1999; Ramsden2002). Similarly, students report qualitatively differentapproaches to learning. Some report deep approaches,those that involve strategies intent on engaging with thetopics under study in order to improve understanding,and some report surface approaches, those that engagein more superficial strategies and intentions such asmemorizing, meeting class requirements or missing thepoint of the experience (Prosser & Trigwell 1999;Ramsden 2002).
In this study, this view of learning is applied to whathigh school students think they are learning throughresearch on the Internet, what strategies they adoptwhen they engage in the research, why they adopt thosestrategies, and how they go about integrating thesources of knowledge they experience online, in text-books and in class.
Research questions
The aim of this study is to provide an understanding ofthe ways in which learning through research on the
Internet works in relation to the tasks in which theresearch took place. In particular, how students makesense of tasks involving Internet research, how theyconceptualize their experiences of learning throughresearch on the Internet, and how they actually learnwhen completing these tasks are central to the research.To achieve these aims, the following questions outlinethe focus of the study.
• What do students report they are learning when theyare researching on the Internet?
• How do students approach learning through researchon the Internet?
• How do students approach integrating differentsources of knowledge (from the Internet and fromtheir textbooks and classes)?
• How are qualitatively different conceptions andapproaches related to student achievement in the classtasks?
Method
Research sites and tasks
Open-ended questionnaires were administered to over300 students from three schools in the Sydney metro-politan area. These included a co-educational selectiveschool, a co-educational comprehensive school, and agirls’ comprehensive school. The disciplines involvedwere Geography and Mathematics, Science, andHistory. To understand the structure of the studentexperience, it is valuable to know more about the tasksthemselves.
In the Geography and Mathematics class, Year 8students were required to investigate a contentiousenvironmental issue of their choice. They wereexpected to compare and contrast evidence of thenature and extent of the issue chosen in at least twodifferent countries. This involved understanding howecological, spatial, and biophysical aspects wererelated to the issue to such an extent that their keyresearch questions on the topic were answered by thedata they found. As part of this task, students wereexpected to engage in meaningful research on the Inter-net, as well as from other sources in class and fromtheir textbooks.
In the Science class, Year 9 students were given spe-cific questions to be answered as part of an ‘open book’
Learning through Internet research in schools 505
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
test in class. The students were expected to prepare aresearch topic at home, and then bring all their resourcesto class. Examples of topics explored included ground-based telescopes, absorption of the electromagneticspectrum by the earth’s atmosphere, the Hubble tele-scope, gamma rays, ultraviolet rays, infrared light, radiowaves, optical telescopes, Newton’s laws of motion. Inpreparation for the test, meaningful research on theInternet was encouraged, including the provision of anumber of useful sources. The test was conducted as aone period open book test.
In the Year 10 History class, students were expectedto complete two tasks: (1) write a short text discussingwhy Australia was involved in the Vietnam war usingthree different sources of evidence: a quote from theprime minister of the time, Robert Menzies, a photo ofGeneral Westmoreland visiting a military base in SouthVietnam, and a third source found by students on theInternet; and (2) complete a task on a political scandalknown as the Petrov Affair, using a range of websources provided by the Old Parliament House Educa-tion team, in total 15% of their final mark for thesubject.
In the Year 11 History class, students were involvedin a role play in which they were members of a forensicteam examining the body of the ancient iceman foundfrozen in the mountains (near the border betweenAustria and Italy) in 1991. They were to examine theevidence, including the body, the clothing, and anypossessions found with the body, and investigate wherethe body was found. A list of resources including web-sites and articles to be used for their research task wasprovided to the students. The students had to conductresearch and prepare a report for the ArchaeologicalSociety including findings on the identity of the bodyand the nature and cause of death.
The questionnaire
The same open-ended questionnaire was administeredto students at each school. The following questionsreveal the structure of the questionnaire:
• What does researching on the Internet mean to you?What are you learning by researching things on theInternet?
• How do you approach researching a learning task onthe Internet? What do you do?
• Why do you do those things?• How do you approach combining the learning
resources? What did you do and why?
The first question probes how students report think-ing about research on the Internet, their conceptions.The second question refers to the students’ approachand what strategies they employed. The third questioninvestigates why they employed the strategies theyused. The fourth question arose from discussions withthe students. They reported that a key aspect of learningwhen they were expected to research on the Internetwas how they integrated all their resources together tocomplete a task successfully.
Analysis
Students’ written responses from the three schoolswere collated and analysed by three independentresearchers. The analysis was based on phenomeno-graphic principles drawing on research by Prosserand Trigwell (1999), Crawford and colleagues (Craw-ford et al. 1994), and Ellis and colleagues (Ellis et al.2004; Ellis et al. 2008). In the process of analysingthe responses, the first step followed by the resear-chers was to independently read the materials (thecollated responses coming from the three schools).This was followed by a more thorough examinationof the responses with emerging themes for each ques-tion. It was evident from the early stages of the processthat there were no significant differences betweenschools in terms of the ways that students were makingsense of their learning through research on the Internet.Even if the tasks (and topics of research) in the threeschools were different, they essentially involved thesame principles, a characteristic which was reflectedin the students’ responses. The researchers took thedecision that the research made the most sense ifthe categories were derived from all the responses.The outcomes show that variation in students’responses was identified in terms of quality but, in thisstudy, it did not vary depending on the school or disci-pline. The researchers discussed emerging themesduring the analysis process, which were continuallyrefined. Students’ responses to each question acrossall sites were assigned to each of the categories, whichare illustrated by quotes from students from the threediscipline areas.
506 R.A. Ellis et al.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Results
Students’ conceptions of learning through researchon the Internet
Table 1 presents a summary of how students reportedlearning through research on the Internet in Geographyand Mathematics, Science, and History.
In Table 1, the first two columns identify the catego-ries and labels of student conceptions. Columns threeto five identify key ideas from the student surveys fromthe disciplines of geography and mathematics, scienceand history, respectively. Rows two to five reveal thevariation in the completeness and quality of studentconceptions.
Broadly speaking, conceptions reported in Cate-gories A and B are relatively more holistic than theother categories. They viewed learning through theInternet as a way to improve understanding ofthe topic and to develop a broader perspective on thetopic by being able to explore a large variety of viewpoints and sources. They included referencesto using the Internet to enhancing discerning abilitiesand a critical approach for learners. Categories C, D,and E separate an awareness of the developmentof comprehension from the experience of the Internetin their tasks. They emphasize it as an easy way tofind answers for the task in order to meet class require-ments and to use the Internet for activities not directlyrelated to their research, such as entertainment andsocial networking.
Students’ approaches to learning through researchon the Internet
The analysis of students’ responses to questions such as‘How do you approach researching a learning task onthe Internet? What do you do? Why do you do thosethings?’ reveal a great deal of qualitative variation.Table 2 summarizes student responses illuminating keyaspects of that variation.
In Table 2, the first row of each approach is ‘how’ orthe strategies used, and the second row is ‘why’ or theintent underpinning the strategy. Columns one to threeidentify the labels and categories and structure ofapproaches reported by students. Columns four to sixidentify key ideas from the student surveys from thedisciplines of geography and mathematics, science,and history, respectively. Rows three to six reveal four
qualitatively different approaches to learning throughresearch.
Broadly speaking, the categories of approachesshown in Table 2 can be divided into those indicating arelatively more meaningful intent underpinning theapproach, Categories A and B, and those indicatinga relatively less meaningful intent underpinningthe approach, Categories C and D. Key aspects ofapproaches reported by students in the first two catego-ries included learning through critical focus and evalua-tion, taking advantage of the richness of informationthat the Internet can provide. In addition, theseapproaches also used the Internet as a way of learningthrough integration, and reflection with a focus on thepossibility to assess the accuracy of the facts by crosschecking them with different sources on the Internet.Key aspects of the more surface approaches to learningthrough research on the Internet focused mostly aroundcollecting, summarizing information, and replicatinginformation. A noticeable strategy of these approachesreported by students was the tendency to copy and paste,often with no attempt to reformulate or integrate theideas in the students’ own words.
Students’ approaches to integratingsources of knowledge
Having completed research for their tasks on the Inter-net, students typically were required to integrate theideas and sources that they had found online with thosethat they had been taught in class and in their textbooks.Table 3 summarizes key aspects of the students’approach to integrating sources of knowledge for theirlearning tasks.
In Table 3, columns one and two identify the labelsand categories of the students’ approaches to integratingknowledge. Columns three to five identify key ideasfrom the disciplines of geography and mathematics,science, and history, respectively. Rows two to fivereveal four qualitatively different approaches to inte-grating sources of knowledge.
The approaches reported in Categories A and Bdescribe deeper approaches to integrating sources ofinformation. These approaches tend to focus on inte-grating sources in a critical way with a focus on analys-ing and evaluating resources to build an argument. Keystrategies involved summarizing and synthesizing ideasinto one’s own words. In contrast, the approaches
Learning through Internet research in schools 507
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Tab
le1.
Stud
ents
’con
cept
ions
ofle
arni
ngth
roug
hre
sear
chon
the
Inte
rnet
.
Cat
ego
ries
Extr
acts
fro
msu
rvey
s
Geo
gra
ph
y&
Mat
hem
atic
s(Y
ear
8)Sc
ien
ce(Y
ear
9)H
isto
ry(Y
ears
10&
11)
AO
nlin
ere
sear
chto
imp
rove
com
pre
hen
sio
nb
yd
evel
op
ing
aw
ider
len
so
nth
eto
pic
Res
earc
hin
go
nth
eIn
tern
etis
on
eo
fm
ym
ost
effi
cien
tw
ays
of
wo
rkin
g.I
tm
akes
[sic
]alo
tea
sier
toh
ave
som
any
dif
fere
nt
view
so
nan
yto
pic
fro
mar
ou
nd
the
wo
rld
.Res
earc
hin
go
nth
eIn
tern
etg
ives
me
aw
ider
view
wh
ich
hel
ps
wit
hu
nd
erst
and
ing
and
mak
ing
con
clu
sio
ns.
Res
earc
hin
go
nth
eIn
tern
etto
me
mea
ns
loo
kin
gfo
rre
liab
leso
urc
eso
fin
form
atio
nre
lati
ng
toa
spec
ific
top
ic.
By
rese
arch
ing
thin
gs
on
the
Inte
rnet
you
lear
nto
read
thro
ug
hth
ing
s,su
mm
ariz
e,n
oti
cere
liab
lean
dsp
ecifi
cin
form
atio
n,a
nd
lear
nto
be
anin
dep
end
ent
rese
arch
er.
Itm
ean
sle
arn
ing
,hav
ing
aw
ider
un
der
stan
din
g,u
sin
gth
eIn
tern
etas
are
sou
rce
for
lear
nin
g.I
lear
nh
ow
tore
sear
chan
dh
ow
tou
seit
wis
ely.
BO
nlin
ere
sear
chto
imp
rove
top
icaw
aren
ess
Res
earc
hin
go
nth
eIn
tern
etm
ean
sa
lot
tom
e.It
giv
esin
form
atio
nth
atIh
ave
no
tle
arn
edan
dit
giv
esin
form
atio
nan
do
pin
ion
so
fo
ther
peo
ple
.Ile
arn
info
rmat
ion
and
that
the
Inte
rnet
isso
met
imes
are
liab
leso
urc
eo
fin
form
atio
n.
Itm
ean
sfi
nd
ing
go
od
site
sre
adin
gth
rou
gh
the
info
rmat
ion
and
usi
ng
the
mo
stap
pro
pri
ate
par
ts.I
lear
ned
alo
tb
ecau
seto
fin
dth
eri
gh
tin
form
atio
nyo
uh
ave
tore
ada
lot.
Res
earc
hin
go
nIn
tern
etm
ean
sex
plo
rin
gth
ew
ebfo
rd
iffe
ren
tvi
ews
and
lear
nin
gth
ing
ssu
chas
ho
wto
com
bin
eth
eman
dal
sole
arn
ing
thin
gs
such
asA
ust
ralia
’sin
volv
emen
t.
CO
nlin
ere
sear
chto
fin
dan
swer
sto
the
task
It’s
the
easi
est,
fast
est
way
tore
sear
chas
you
can
acce
ssin
form
atio
nfr
om
ag
azill
ion
sou
rces
alla
rou
nd
the
wo
rld
.
Yo
ug
eta
mu
chw
ider
amo
un
to
fan
swer
sfo
rth
atp
aper
and
itis
the
easi
est
thin
gto
do
.
Itm
ean
sIc
anac
cess
rele
van
t,h
elp
ful,
qu
ick
info
rmat
ion
by
usi
ng
the
corr
ect
wo
rdin
gin
the
sear
chen
gin
e.Il
earn
tou
sese
arch
eng
ines
soIc
ang
etas
mu
cho
ut
of
them
asp
oss
ible
.D
On
line
rese
arch
tom
eet
clas
sre
qu
irem
ents
Res
earc
hin
go
nth
eIn
tern
etis
sim
ply
aw
ayo
fg
etti
ng
info
rmat
ion
.It
isw
her
eI
get
80%
–90%
of
my
info
rmat
ion
It’s
the
easi
est
way
for
me
tog
etin
form
atio
n,a
nd
tom
eh
asth
em
ost
info
rmat
ion
.
Less
wo
rkan
dea
sier
tofi
nd
the
info
rmat
ion
Inee
d.
EO
nlin
eac
tivi
tyu
nre
late
dto
lear
nin
gIg
etg
oo
dw
ebsi
tes
for
my
nex
tas
sig
nm
ent.
No
tm
uch
,In
tern
et’s
gen
eral
lyu
sed
for
soci
aliz
ing
and
MyS
pac
e!N
/A
508 R.A. Ellis et al.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Tab
le2.
Hig
hsc
hool
stud
ents
’app
roac
hes
tole
arni
ngth
roug
hre
sear
chon
the
Inte
rnet
.
Cat
ego
ries
Qu
ota
tio
ns
Des
crip
tors
Geo
gra
ph
y&
Mat
hem
atic
s(Y
ear
8)Sc
ien
ce(Y
ear
9)H
isto
ry(Y
ears
10&
11)
AO
nlin
ere
sear
chas
aw
ayo
fle
arn
ing
thro
ug
hcr
itic
alfo
cus
and
eval
uat
ion
Ho
w?
Firs
tIt
hin
kab
ou
tw
hat
Ihav
eto
rese
arch
and
do
am
ind
map
on
wh
atIk
no
wab
ou
tm
yis
sue.
Ith
enw
ent
on
Go
og
lean
dty
ped
inm
yis
sue
and
ente
red
the
site
sw
hic
hse
emed
rele
van
tto
wh
atIw
ante
dto
fou
nd
ou
t.If
the
site
did
no
th
ave
any
info
rmat
ion
that
Iwan
ted
Iwen
tto
the
nex
tre
leva
nt
site
and
soo
n.
Firs
tly,
Ilo
oke
dat
the
qu
esti
on
san
du
nd
erlin
edth
eke
ywo
rds,
ifId
idn
’tu
nd
erst
and
aq
ues
tio
n,I
aske
dth
ete
ach
er.N
ext,
Ityp
edin
the
keyw
ord
sin
Go
og
lean
dw
ent
thro
ug
h4
or
5si
tes
tose
ew
hic
hh
adth
eb
est
info
rmat
ion
that
suit
edm
yq
ues
tio
n.T
hen
Irea
dth
rou
gh
the
mo
stre
leva
nt
pag
ean
dtr
ied
tog
etth
eb
road
est
info
rmat
ion
Ico
uld
fin
d.
Ifirs
td
efin
eex
actl
yw
hat
I[si
c]lo
oki
ng
for
and
wh
atin
form
atio
nIn
eed
.Th
enu
sual
lyu
seG
oo
gle
tofi
nd
gen
eral
info
rmat
ion
abo
ut
it..
..Th
enIl
oo
kat
oth
ersi
tes
on
Go
og
leju
dg
ing
the
site
sb
yth
eir
web
add
ress
.Ith
enfi
nd
spec
ific
par
tsw
hic
hth
enco
py
and
pas
teto
aw
ord
pro
cess
or
and
re-w
rite
usi
ng
ow
nw
ord
s.W
hy?
Itm
akes
me
fully
un
der
stan
dth
eto
pic
soIc
anle
arn
asm
uch
asIc
anb
ym
ysel
f.Ig
etd
iffe
ren
tin
form
atio
nfr
om
dif
fere
nt
site
sb
ecau
seit
giv
esm
ean
idea
wh
ich
isth
em
ost
corr
ect
and
soI
can
lear
nm
ore
.Als
oIs
um
mar
ise
my
info
rmat
ion
soin
the
test
Ido
n’t
use
allm
yti
me
tryi
ng
tore
adan
du
nd
erst
and
wh
atth
ete
xtm
ean
s.
Iwan
tto
firs
tly
hav
ea
bas
ickn
ow
led
ge
and
un
der
stan
din
go
fth
ew
ar,s
oin
furt
her
exam
inat
ion
sIw
illh
ave
ab
ette
ru
nd
erst
and
ing
.Ise
arch
on
the
Inte
rnet
ino
rder
tog
eta
mo
reco
mp
lete
and
det
aile
dex
pla
nat
ion
.B
On
line
rese
arch
asa
way
of
lear
nin
gth
rou
gh
refl
ecti
on
and
inte
gra
tio
n
Ho
w?
Ifirs
tu
sual
lyg
oto
Go
og
leo
ro
ther
sear
chen
gin
eto
fin
dg
ener
alkn
ow
led
ge
abo
ut
the
sub
ject
Iam
stu
dyi
ng
.Wh
end
oin
gth
isIr
ead
alo
to
fth
esi
tes
that
hav
eco
me
up
asa
resu
ltto
chec
kth
atth
ing
sar
eri
gh
t.To
rese
arch
mo
resp
ecifi
cth
ing
sIg
ener
ally
on
lyre
ada
few
and
Ich
oo
seth
emb
ased
on
thei
rh
ead
ing
.
Ch
oo
sese
vera
lsea
rch
eng
ines
;typ
edin
qu
esti
on
/des
ired
task
into
the
sear
chb
ar;c
ho
ose
the
web
site
that
loo
ked
like
ith
adth
ein
form
atio
nm
ost
rele
van
tto
wh
atIw
aslo
oki
ng
for;
op
ened
web
site
and
chec
ked
ifit
was
ava
lidso
urc
e;fo
un
dd
esir
edin
form
atio
nif
itw
asth
ere
and
cop
ied
the
info
rmat
ion
into
aw
ord
do
cum
ent
asw
ella
sth
ew
ebad
dre
ssfo
rla
ter
edit
ing
Firs
tly,
Iusu
ally
go
og
leu
pth
eto
pic
or
key
elem
ents
fro
ma
qu
esti
on
.Dif
fere
nt
tab
sar
eu
sefu
lbec
ause
afte
rIo
pen
edu
pa
few
dif
fere
nt
site
sIc
anco
mp
are
the
info
rmat
ion
and
use
the
mo
stsu
pp
ort
edin
form
atio
n.A
fter
,Iu
sual
lyre
-wo
rdan
dex
trac
tth
em
ost
imp
ort
ant
par
tso
fin
form
atio
nfr
om
the
site
s
Wh
y?It
ryto
fin
dlo
tso
fsi
tes
soth
atIg
eta
wid
era
ng
eo
fin
form
atio
nan
dca
nth
encr
oss
ou
tth
ing
sth
atar
en
ot
rele
van
t.Ic
hec
kth
atth
esi
tes
say
the
sam
eth
ing
sto
mak
esu
reth
ein
form
atio
nIh
ave
isac
cura
tean
dn
ot
just
mad
eu
p.I
vary
my
sear
chte
rms
soth
atIc
ang
ath
eras
mu
chin
form
atio
nas
po
ssib
le.
Bec
ause
they
are
ag
oo
ds
sou
rce;
loo
klik
eth
eyh
ave
the
mo
stre
leva
nt
info
rmat
ion
;usi
ng
seve
rals
earc
hen
gin
eso
pen
sa
larg
ern
um
ber
of
op
tio
ns;
Ican
fin
dm
any
vers
ion
so
fth
esa
me
thin
gan
dco
mp
are.
By
loo
kin
gat
ala
rge
ran
ge
of
web
site
s,Ic
ancr
oss
-ref
eren
cem
yin
form
atio
nto
chec
kit
sac
cura
cy
CO
nlin
ere
sear
chas
aw
ayo
fco
llect
ing
and
sum
mar
izin
g
Ho
w?
Iuse
dG
oo
gle
and
sear
ched
wh
atIn
eed
ed.T
hen
Icl
icke
dev
ery
link
un
tilI
fou
nd
wh
atIn
eed
ed.I
use
dw
ikip
edia
.Iu
sed
vari
ou
sre
sou
rces
fro
msi
tes
Ifo
un
do
nG
oo
gle
.
Irea
dth
ew
ho
leta
skfi
rst,
Iwen
tto
Go
og
le.c
om
,Ity
ped
inw
hat
Iwas
rese
arch
ing
.Ial
sow
ent
tow
ikip
edia
and
fofw
eb.c
om
.Ip
ho
toco
pie
dan
dg
ive
itto
my
frie
nd
,we
alls
har
edth
ein
form
atio
n.
Firs
tly,
Igo
og
led
I,th
enIt
yped
info
rex
amp
le,t
he
Petr
ov
affa
ir.Fr
om
ther
e,Is
um
mar
ized
the
info
rmat
ion
that
was
giv
ento
me.
An
dIu
sed
that
info
rmat
ion
tod
om
yas
sess
men
tta
sk.
Wh
y?O
ne
reas
on
was
bec
ause
we
did
n’t
hav
ep
rio
rkn
ow
led
ge
and
we
nee
ded
info
rmat
ion
and
the
Inte
rnet
and
Go
og
lear
efa
irly
sim
ple
way
sto
get
info
rmat
ion
.It
isal
soq
uit
eea
syan
dq
uic
k
Tog
etin
form
atio
nIn
eed
to;c
ho
ose
the
bes
tw
ebsi
tew
ith
the
mo
stin
form
atio
nIg
oto
Go
og
leb
ecau
seit
iso
ne
of
the
web
site
sw
hic
hca
np
rovi
de
the
mo
stin
form
atio
nan
dre
sou
rces
DO
nlin
ere
sear
chas
aw
ayo
fre
plic
atin
gin
form
atio
n
Ho
w?
Igo
stra
igh
tto
Go
og
lean
dty
pe
inth
eke
ywo
rd.(
...)
Ig
oto
the
firs
to
ne
and
cop
yev
eryt
hin
gin
tow
ord
.IG
oo
gle
dth
eq
ues
tio
nan
dth
enw
ent
toth
efi
rst
web
site
and
ifth
atd
idn
’th
ave
the
answ
ers
Iwen
tto
the
nex
t.
Iwen
tto
Go
og
lean
dty
ped
inw
hat
Iwas
rese
arch
ing
.Iw
asat
ho
me
on
my
ow
nco
mp
ute
r.Io
pen
edth
efi
rst
few
web
site
san
dg
ath
ered
any
use
fuli
nfo
rmat
ion
.W
hy?
Itis
the
easi
est
way
toq
uic
kly
fin
din
form
atio
nfo
ran
yto
pic
.It
’sa
qu
ick
and
easy
way
tog
etso
me
answ
ers.
Go
og
leis
easy
tou
sean
dea
syto
get
answ
ers.
Bec
ause
itis
afa
ster
way
tod
oth
ose
thin
gs.
As
you
wo
uld
nee
dto
go
loo
kfo
rth
eri
gh
tb
oo
k,w
hen
you
can
just
loo
kfo
rth
ein
form
atio
nyo
un
eed
on
the
net
Learning through Internet research in schools 509
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Tab
le3.
Stud
ents
’app
roac
hes
toin
tegr
atin
gso
urce
sof
know
ledg
e.
Cat
ego
ries
Qu
ota
tio
ns
Geo
gra
ph
y&
Mat
hem
atic
s(Y
ear
8)Sc
ien
ce(Y
ear
9)H
isto
ry(Y
ears
10&
11)
A.
Inte
gra
tin
gso
urc
esin
acr
itic
alw
ayw
ith
afo
cus
on
bu
ildin
gan
arg
um
ent
Iwo
rked
on
my
geo
gra
ph
yp
art
firs
t.O
nce
that
was
fin
ish
ed,I
wro
ten
ote
san
dch
ang
edth
efo
rmat
into
my
ow
nw
ord
san
dad
ded
inth
ein
form
atio
nab
ou
tw
hat
Ihav
eal
read
ykn
ew[s
ic].
Ih
adto
sort
ou
tm
yn
ote
san
dfi
lter
them
.On
cefi
lter
edIm
ake
my
con
clu
sio
nb
ased
on
my
rese
arch
.
On
ceIh
adfo
un
dth
eac
cura
tein
form
atio
nth
atIw
aslo
oki
ng
for
Isu
mm
ariz
edth
ein
form
atio
nin
tom
yo
wn
wo
rds
soth
atIc
ou
ldu
nd
erst
and
itm
ore
easi
lyan
dw
asea
syfo
un
dw
hen
sitt
ing
the
test
.Ial
soke
pt
som
eo
fth
ew
ebsi
telin
ksso
that
ifIn
eed
edto
go
bac
ko
nth
emIc
ou
ldfo
rfu
rth
erre
sear
ch.
Itri
edto
fin
da
sou
rce
wit
hlo
to
fin
form
atio
nab
ou
tth
eV
ietn
amw
ar,
then
Itri
edto
un
der
stan
d(t
oth
eb
est
of
my
abili
ty)a
bo
ut
wh
yA
ust
ralia
wen
tto
Vie
tnam
and
then
wro
teth
ean
alys
is.
Then
Iwen
tb
ack
and
re-r
ead
wh
atI
wro
tean
dre
ferr
edb
ack
toth
eso
urc
es,
chec
kin
gw
het
her
wh
atIw
rote
was
fro
mso
urc
es.T
his
met
ho
dal
low
sm
eto
wri
teev
eryt
hin
gin
my
ow
nw
ord
san
du
nd
erst
and
ever
yth
ing
mo
reco
mp
lete
lyto
com
bin
eth
e3
sou
rces
ina
mo
refl
ow
ing
way
.B
Inte
gra
tin
gso
urc
esw
ith
afo
cus
on
valid
ity
of
info
rmat
ion
On
ceIh
adth
ein
form
atio
n,I
read
and
un
der
sto
od
wh
atit
was
talk
ing
abo
ut.
Fro
ma
few
dif
fere
nt
site
s,Ih
ada
com
bin
atio
n,e
no
ug
hin
form
atio
nto
eval
uat
eth
efa
cts
and
com
eto
aco
ncl
usi
on
.
Itri
edto
use
seve
rals
earc
hen
gin
esfo
ra
wid
erra
ng
eo
fch
oic
es.C
hec
kth
atth
eso
urc
eis
valid
.See
ifth
ein
form
atio
nis
rele
van
tto
wh
atIn
eed
.
Toco
mb
ine
my
lear
nin
gre
sou
rces
Ilin
ked
the
info
rmat
ion
Ihad
,to
the
kno
wle
dg
efr
om
the
bo
ok
and
clas
sw
ork
.Lin
kin
gth
eso
urc
esw
asm
yai
m,
bac
kto
the
qu
esti
on
wh
ich
was
stat
ing
reas
on
sw
hy
Au
stra
liaw
asin
volv
edin
Vie
tnam
war
.Iin
itia
llyw
rote
ou
tth
ere
aso
ns,
then
said
ho
wth
eso
urc
esd
emo
nst
rate
dth
ose
reas
on
s.C
Co
mb
inin
gso
urc
esw
ith
afo
cus
on
com
ple
tin
gta
skG
etin
form
atio
nfr
om
aw
ebsi
tean
dco
pie
dan
dp
aste
dit
.Pu
tso
me
sen
ten
ces
into
my
ow
nw
ord
s.Id
idth
ese
bec
ause
Iwas
mea
nt
to,i
tw
asp
art
of
the
task
tore
sear
cho
nth
eIn
tern
et.
Ifirs
tw
ent
on
toG
oo
gle
,th
envi
ewed
man
yw
ebsi
tes
un
tilI
fou
nd
the
rig
ht
info
rmat
ion
for
the
test
.Id
idth
isb
ecau
seit
isea
syto
do
and
you
are
alm
ost
gu
aran
teed
tofi
nd
the
rig
ht
web
site
by
usi
ng
Go
og
le.
Ico
mb
ine
allm
yin
form
atio
no
nM
icro
soft
do
cum
ent
soIc
anh
ave
allu
sefu
lin
form
atio
nto
get
her
.Ip
ut
allm
yin
form
atio
no
no
ne
pag
eso
its
[sic
]eas
yto
read
,wo
rkan
dco
mp
are.
On
my
assi
gn
men
tIc
om
bin
edal
lmy
rese
arch
and
then
refe
rto
the
sou
rces
.D
Ag
gre
gat
ing
sou
rces
ind
iscr
imin
atel
yIl
oo
ked
ata
few
links
that
mat
ched
up
wit
hm
yke
ywo
rds
and
Ilo
oke
dat
the
info
rmat
ion
on
tho
sep
ages
and
pu
tit
tog
eth
er.
Ipri
nte
do
ut
my
info
rmat
ion
,aft
erIh
adco
pie
dit
and
pas
ted
allt
og
eth
er.
Igat
her
the
info
rmat
ion
ind
iffe
ren
tw
ebsi
tes
and
com
bin
ing
[sic
]th
ein
form
atio
n.
510 R.A. Ellis et al.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
reported in Categories C and D focused mainly on com-bining rather than integrating sources of information,typically with little consideration for their cumulativecontribution to a cohesive argument.A tendency to copyand paste indiscriminately would often feature in suchapproaches.
Tables 1 to 3 together provide a detailed descriptionof the variation in the students’ experience of learningthrough research on the Internet. The next stage of thestudy investigated quantitative patterns in the qualita-tive data through an analysis of the frequencies of thecategories of classification.
Quantitative analyses
The quantitative analyses considered in the study can bedivided into three parts. The first part shows the frequen-cies of the classification of the categories describedabove identifying the conceptions and approaches to theexperience of learning through research on the Internet.The second part identifies key relationships amongst thequalitatively different aspects of the experience. The lastpart presents statistically significant relationships bet-ween the categories of classification and student achie-vement as indicated by the mark awarded for their tasks.
Table 4 shows the frequencies associated with thestudents’ experience.
Table 4 shows, for each of the three samples, thenumber of students that were classified as displaying
various conceptions of learning through research onthe internet (A, B, C, D, and E), adopting variousapproaches to learning through research on the internetas a result of the various intentions strategies adopted(A, B, C, and D), and to integrating resources (A,B,C,and D). For the most part, the distribution of the fre-quencies shown in Table 4 generally tends toward a bellcurve. Similar to previous research (Prosser & Trigwell1999), the frequencies of the relatively better categoryare small in comparison to the other categories.
To investigate any patterns amongst the frequenciesof the categories from a student perspective, two by twocross-tabulations were calculated.
Relationships amongst parts of the studentslearning experience
Tables 5 and 6 identify key relationships amongst thecategories of how students reported, thinking aboutresearch on the Internet, their approaches to conductingthat research and the approaches to integrating sourcesof knowledge.
Table 5 indicates that across the three samples,students who report a conception of online research asa way of finding answers and meeting teachers’requirements tend to report approaches to resear-ching online that are mostly about collecting, summa-rizing, and replicating information. In contrast, thestudents who report a conception of online research, as
Table 4. Frequencies of categories of high school experiences of learning through research on the Internet.
No Aspects of learning Categories
A B C D E
Geography & Mathematics Year 8 (n = 81)1 Conceptions of learning through research on the Internet 2 21 33 20 32 Approach to learning through research on the Internet Strategies 5 17 46 13 –3 Intentions 2 14 47 18 –4 Approaches to integrating sources of knowledge 2 21 42 15 –Science Year 9 (n = 127)1 Conceptions of learning through research on the Internet 10 30 49 35 42 Approach to learning through research on the Internet Strategies 10 36 59 27 –3 Intentions 10 35 26 61 –4 Approaches to integrating sources of knowledge 10 35 35 48 –History Years 10 & 11 (n = 88)1 Conceptions of learning through research on the Internet 4 20 48 13 –2 Approach to learning through research on the Internet Strategies 8 27 34 19 –3 Intentions 5 30 40 13 –4 Approaches to integrating sources of knowledge 4 22 37 23 –
Learning through Internet research in schools 511
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
a way of improving topic knowledge and develo-ping a wider lens on the issues, report approachesto researching online which focus on reflection, inte-gration, sometimes extending to critical focus andevaluation.
In Table 6, students from all the three sampleswho report approaches to integrating the sourcesof knowledge that are mostly about collecting, sum-marizing, and replicating information tend to reportapproaches to researching online that are mostlyabout collecting, summarizing, and replicating infor-mation. In contrast, the students who report appr-oaches that integrate sources of knowledge, throughreflection and critical evaluation, report approachesto researching online, which focus on reflection, inte-gration, sometimes extending to critical focus andevaluation.
Relationships between key parts of the learningexperience and achievement
The third area of quantitative statistics considered in thestudy was the relationships between the key aspects ofthe students’ experiences of learning through the Inter-net and their marks awarded for the tasks. These are pre-sented in Table 7.
Significantly, in all cases, the qualitatively better cat-egories are associated with a mean mark significantlyhigher than the qualitatively poorer categories. Overall,they indicate that students who reported cohesive con-ceptions of, and deep approaches to Internet research-ing and integrating sources of knowledge tended toperform at a statistically higher level than studentswho reported fragmented conceptions and surfaceapproaches to the experience.
Table 5. Approaches to, and conceptions of, learning through research on the Internet.
Conceptions Intentions Total
Deep Surface
Geography and Mathematics (n = 23, n = 56)Cohesive1 Strategies Deep 9 3 12
Surface 1 10 11Total 10 13 23
Fragmented2 Strategies Deep 6 4 10Surface 0 46 46
Total 6 50 56Science (n = 88, n = 40)
Cohesive3 Strategies Deep 24 1 25Surface 4 11 15Total 28 12 40
Fragmented4 Strategies Deep 12 9 21Surface 5 62 67
Total 17 71 88History (n = 62, n = 24)
Cohesive5 Strategies Deep 12 3 15Surface 2 7 9
Total 14 10 24Fragmented6 Strategies Deep 14 4 18
Surface 5 39 44Total 19 43 62
1Chi square = 10.15; phi = 0.66, P = 0.005.2Chi square = 30.91; phi = 0.74, P = 0.001.3Chi square = 21.46; phi = 0.73, P = 0.001.4Chi square = 25.32; phi = 0.54, p-.001.5Chi square = 7.73, phi = 0.57, P = 0.01.6Chi square = 26.51, phi = 0.65, P = 0.001.
512 R.A. Ellis et al.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Implications of findings and conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the highschool student experience of learning through researchon the Internet. After reviewing common activities ofteachers in high school prior to commencing the study,it was clear that students were often asked to includesome research on the Internet as part of a larger taskwhich included some work in class and preparation athome. At a high level of description, the structure of thelearning tasks, and the responses made by students tothe survey questions were sufficiently similar to warranta common classification across the students’ experi-ence. Variation in the ways that students reported, think-ing about research on the Internet (their conceptions),how they went about the research, and how they wentabout integrating ideas from different sources of theirlearning experience (their approaches) were identified
and were positively related to the relative performanceof students according to the marks that they received fortheir learning tasks.
Before considering the implications of these findings,it is worth noting the limitations of the study. Because ofthe relatively large population sample for a qualitativestudy, it was only possible to survey the students (ratherthan conduct one-on-one interviews). In future studies,this approach to data collection would benefit frominterviews to unpack some of the more complex mean-ings made by student comments. The sample was drawnfrom one selective high school and two non-selectivehigh schools from three distinct metropolitan areas inNSW. Future studies could widen the populationsample to include rural schools.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the implicationsof the study are significant for teachers introducingcomputers into the classroom for every student. Signifi-
Table 6. Approaches to learning through research on the Internet and approaches to integrating sources of knowledge.
Integrating approaches Intentions Total
Deep Surface
Geography and Mathematics (n = 23, n = 57)Deep1 Strategies Deep 12 4 16
Surface 1 6 7Total 13 10 23
Surface2 Strategies Deep 3 3 6Surface 0 51 51
Total 6 3 54Science (n = 45, n = 83)
Deep3 Strategies Deep 25 3 28Surface 5 12 17Total 30 15 45
Surface4 Strategies Deep 11 7 18Surface 4 61 65
Total 17 15 68History (n = 26, n = 60)
Deep5 Strategies Deep 17 2 19Surface 3 4 7
Total 20 6 26Surface6 Strategies Deep 9 6 15
Surface 5 40 45Total 19 14 46
1Chi square = 7.30; phi = 0.56, P = 0.05.2Chi square = 26.92; phi = 0.69, P = 0.001.3Chi square = 17.06; phi = 0.62, P = 0.001.4Chi square = 28.75; phi = 0.59, P = 0.001.5Chi square = 6.26; phi = 0.49, P = 0.05.6Chi square = 15.03; phi = 0.50, P = 0.05.
Learning through Internet research in schools 513
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
cantly, the experience reported here suggests that thecontribution that learning technologies can make totheir learning is a relational one, that is, it is often onepart of an experience shaped by and closely related tothe parts of the learning task which began in class, andare often pursed through study of textbooks and or inexams.As a consequence, the issue of integrating differ-ent sources of information, evaluating their worth andweaving them into relevant and meaningful arguments,is an increasingly important part of the experience. Stu-dents have always been expected to develop this skill,but with the inclusion of a much wider variety of legiti-mate resources for tasks, the skill of identifying, extract-ing, moulding, and synthesizing key ideas together isperhaps one of the most crucial attributes that studentsneed to master and, therefore, need to be taught byteachers.
In this study across the four disciplinary areas and 4years of schooling, only about a third of the studentsreported approaches to integrating sources of knowl-edge that were classified as deep. These approaches cor-related strongly with key statistics. In general, deepapproaches to integrating resources were related to amean of around ten marks or higher than surfaceapproaches. Deep approaches to integrating resources
tended to be also related to deep approaches to research-ing on the Internet, and conceptions of the activitywhich retained a strong awareness of the need todevelop understanding through the experience. Theseassociations are perhaps the most valuable insights fromthis study for teachers who seek to maximize the qualityof the students’ experience of learning when the tasksinclude research on the Internet.
The tendency and strength of the key associationsoffer a way into the students’ experience which willhelp teachers orientate their strategies. Clearly, duringorientation of students to tasks involving the Internet, akey part should raise awareness in the students’ mind ofthe challenges involved in identifying and summarizingideas from the Internet, relating those to ideas discussedin class and highlighted in textbooks, and then reformu-lating the ideas in the students’ own words in their tasks.Too many of the reported approaches of students in thesurveys suggested that they did no more than find somerelated ideas, and then added them to other ideas withlittle thought before handing them to the teacher. To dothis, modeling successful approaches may be one wayto raise awareness in the students’ mind. Finding lan-guage amongst students in the teachers’ class todescribe more successful and less successful ways is
Table 7. Conceptions, approaches and achievement in Geography and Mathematics, Science, and History.
Aspects of learning through researchon the Internet
Final mark #
Mathematics and Geography (n = 81) Science (n = 127) History (n = 57)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
ConceptionsCohesive 79.22 11.08 77.55 6.13 78.27 15.81Fragmented 72.66 13.31 64.26 10.77 66.16 16.77t-test: T = 2.1* 7.2** 2.5*
Approaches learning strategiesDeep 80.86 10.04 74.11 8.99 77.87 16.97Surface 71.53 13.45 64.68 11.45 63.44 14.89t-test: T = 2.9* 4.8** 3.5**
IntentionsDeep 79.94 10.80 75.66 6.86 78.15 16.46Surface 72.62 72.62 64.11 11.50 63.20 15.12t-test: T = 2.0* 6.1** 3.6*
Approaches integratingDeep 81.43 10.06 76.53 6.59 78.86 15.92Surface 71.19 13.38 63.76 11.22 64.61 15.55t-test: T = 3.3* 7.0** 3.3*
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, # = Mark out of 100.
514 R.A. Ellis et al.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
also likely to help. If one looks at the frequency of cat-egories for student conceptions of learning throughresearch on the Internet, there seems to be a lot of mis-conception about what students think they are doing.This suggests that a continuing theme discussed in classthroughout the year, of the strengths and of the limita-tions of research on the Internet, would help to redresssuch misconceptions.
The results from this study suggest that for teachersor educational authorities introducing computers intoclassrooms, their success will be closely related tounderstanding and addressing the challenges arisingfrom the experience from a student perspective. Onlythen will teachers be in a well-informed position toadopt strategies which will go to the heart of the issuesin a way that will make sense to students.
Acknowledgement
This project was funded by the Australian ResearchCouncil (Grant LP0562146, awarded to Goodyear,Ellis, Prosser, and the NSW Department of Educationand Training).
References
Berry J. & Sahlberg P. (1996) Investigating pupils’ ideas oflearning. Learning and Instruction 6, 19–36.
Cano F. (2005) Epistemological beliefs and approaches tolearning: their change through secondary school and theirinfluence on academic performance. British Journal ofEducational Psychology 75, 203–221.
Crawford K., Gordon S., Nicholas J. & Prosser M. (1994)Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: the per-spectives of students entering university. Learning andInstruction 4, 331–345.
Dart B.C., Burnett P.C., Purdie N., Boulton-Lewis G., Camp-bell J. & Smith D. (2000) Students’ conceptions of learning,the classroom environment, and approaches to learning.The Journal of Educational Research. 93, 262–270.
Ellis R.A., Calvo R.A., Levy D. & Tan K. (2004) Learningthrough discussions. Higher Education Research andDevelopment 23, 73–93.
Ellis R., Goodyear P., Prosser M. & Calvo R. (2008) Engineer-ing students’ conceptions of and approaches to learningthrough discussions in face-to-face and online contexts.Learning and Instruction 18, 267–282.
Healey M. (2005) Linking research and teaching: exp-loring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-basedlearning. In Reshaping the University: New Relationshipsbetween Research, Scholarship and Teaching (ed. R.Barnett), pp. 67–78. McGraw Hill/Open University Press,Maidenhead, UK.
Lenhart A., Simon M. & Graziano M. (2001) The Internet andEducation: Findings of the Pew Internet & American LifeProject. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washing-ton, DC.
Li Q. (2007) Student and teacher views about technology: atale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology inEducation 39, 377–397.
Livingstone S. & Bober M. (2005) UK Children Go Online:Final Report of Key Project Findings. Economic and SocialResearch Council, London.
Marton F. & Booth S. (1997) Learning and Awareness.Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Marton F., Watkins D. & Tang C. (1997) Discontinuities andcontinuities in the experience of learning: an interviewstudy of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning andInstruction 7, 21–48.
Prosser M. & Trigwell K. (1999) Understanding Learningand Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. OpenUniversity Press, Milton Keynes, UK.
Ramsden P. (2002) Learning to Teach in Higher Education,2nd edition, Routledge, London.
Spires H.A., Lee J.K., Turner K.A. & Johnson J. (2008)Having our say: middle grade student perspectives onschool, technologies, and academic engagement. Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 40, 495–515.
Watkins D. & Akande A. (1994) Approaches to learningof Nigerian secondary school children: emic and eticperspectives. International Journal of Psychology 29,165–182.
Learning through Internet research in schools 515
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd