College students’ use of self-generated tagclouds for knowledge integration: evidence from reflections
Student-generated tagclouds provided an intuitive overview of a group of learners’ collective knowledge. Although such tagclouds may have the potential to be used as effective learning tools, it has not been clear how students use this tool for knowledge construction. In this paper, we report a two-stage study that investigated college students’ experiences of using tagclouds for developing their domain knowledge, culminating in individual concept maps and research papers. Based on the results of the qualitative analyses of students’ reflections from the first stage, an intervention was introduced: group discussions on tagclouds generated from different groups. The result of Study Stage II showed that group discussions highlighted the utility of the tagclouds. Treatment group participants were more likely to use tagclouds as metacognitive strategies for planning, searching, retrieving, and organizing their learning. The two-stage study also underscored the importance of collecting students’ reflections earlier in the learning process when introducing a new technology tool to promote learning.
KeywordsGroup discussion Metacognitive strategies Tagcloud Tagging
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The two authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This study was approved by IRB at Idaho State University. When this study was conducted, the two authors were faculty at Idaho State University.
- Bateman, S., Brooks, C., Mccalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007). Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning. In Proceedings of the16th international world wide web conference (WWW2007).Google Scholar
- Bonifazi, F., Levialdi, S., Rizzo, P., & Trinchese, R. (2002). A web-based annotation tool supporting e-learning. In Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, Italy (pp. 123–128). https://doi.org/10.1145/1556262.1556281.
- Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
- Cañas A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M., Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T. C., …, Carvajal, R. (2005). Concept maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 205–219). https://doi.org/10.1007/11510154_11.Google Scholar
- Cattuto, C., Loreto, V., & Pietronero, L. (2006). Collaborative tagging and semiotic dynamics. ArXiv. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Collaborative-Tagging-and-Semiotic-Dynamics-Cattuto-Loreto/3cc074bfc9f1ff8759d7988b6664b96113bdb9c3.
- Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
- Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2009). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities, differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 1–19.Google Scholar
- Chung, S., Chung, M.-J., & Severance, C. (1999). Design of support tools and knowledge building in a virtual university course: Effect of reflection and self-explanation prompts. Paper presented at the WebNet 99 World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings, Honolulu, Hawaii. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448706).Google Scholar
- Darling-Hammond, L., Austin, K., Cheung, M., & Martin, D. (2003). Thinking about thinking: Metacognition. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from http://www.learner.org/courses/learningclassroom/support/09_metacog.pdf.
- Dye, J. (2006). Folksonomy: A game of high-tech (and high-stakes) tag. EContent, 29(3), 38–43.Google Scholar
- Fewell, N. (2010). Language learning strategies and English language proficiency: An investigation of Japanese EFL university students. TESOL Journal, 2, 159–174.Google Scholar
- Fogarty, R. (1994). How to teach for metacognition. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.Google Scholar
- Gagné, R. M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
- Hearst, M. A., & Rosner, D. (2008). Tag clouds: Data analysis tool or social signaler? In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS’08. IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2008.422.
- Huang, J.-L., Chen, C.-M., Pai, T.-W., Zeng, L. W., & Chen, R. (2011). Multiscale SSR tag cloud visualization for biomarker discovery. Paper presented at 2011 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS). https://doi.org/10.1109/cisis.2011.85.
- Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Knautz, K., Soubusta, S., & Stock, W. G. (2010). Tag clusters as information retrieval interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2010.360.
- Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. B. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person.Google Scholar
- Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference?. Small Group Research, 37(6), 631–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406294322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McDevitt, T. M., & Omorod, J. E. (2016). Child development and education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson & Always Learning.Google Scholar
- Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Morgan, D. (2009). Teaching and learning has always been a highly social activity. Technology hasn’t changed this. Or has it? In Learning technologies conference, Queensland.Google Scholar
- Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Roblyer, M. D. (2016). Integrating educational technology into teaching (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2014). Examining concept maps as an assessment tool. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping (pp. 555–562). Pamplona: Universidad Pública de Navarra.Google Scholar
- Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 249–268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(6), 528–541.Google Scholar
- Simsek, A., & Balaban, J. (2010). Learning strategies of successful and unsuccessful university students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 36–45.Google Scholar
- Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://gerrystahl.net/pub/icls2000.pdf.
- Tonkin, E., Corrado, E. M., Moulaison, H. L, Kipp, M. E. I., Resmini, A., Pfeiffer, H. D., & Zhang, Q. (2008). Collaborative and social tagging networks. ARIADNE. Retrieved January 6, 2017, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue54/tonkin-et-al/.
- Trant, J. (2009). Studying social tagging and folksonomy: A review and framework. Journal of Digital Information, 1–44. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/20c9/c166f1e19973c266b6583d4ed5f22ce63f1b.pdf?_ga=2.42284453.1670544779.1502384836-1586243306.1502384836.
- Walhout, J., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jarodzka, H., van Dijk, M., de Groot, R., & Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Learning and navigating in hypertext: Navigational support by hierarchical menu or tag cloud? Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeng, X., & Harris, S. T. (2005). Blogging in an online health information technology class. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 29(2), 6.Google Scholar
- Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education: Students’ learning, teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on research on teaching thinking (pp. 229–242). Florence, KT: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar