High school students' experiences of learning through research on the Internet

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: [email protected]

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


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.



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



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



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



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.



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 –



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


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.



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


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


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.



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.



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.



High school students' experiences of learning through research on the Internet

Documents

Transcript of High school students' experiences of learning through research on the Internet