The Relationship Between Metacognitive Awareness And Online Information Searching Strategies

Bu calismada universite ogrencilerinin ustbilissel farkindaliklariyla cevrimici bilgi arama stratejileri (CBAS) arasindaki iliskinin ortaya konulmasi amaclanmistir. Arastirma karma yonteme gore yurutulmus olup, arastirmanin katilimcilarini 419 universite ogrencisi olusturmaktadir. Arastirmanin verileri CBAS ve Bilisotesi Farkindalik Envanterleri ile ogrenci goruslerini belirleme formundan elde edilmistir. Sonuclar, ogrencilerin UF duzeylerinin ve cevrimici bilgi arama stratejilerinin gelismis duzeyde sayilabilecegini gostermektedir. Korelâsyon analizi sonuclarina gore CBAS ile UF degiskenleri arasinda pozitif yonde orta duzeyde anlamli bir iliskinin oldugu belirlenmistir. Nitel bulgular incelendiginde ise, planlama surecinde ogrencilerin cogunlukla anahtar kelimelere karar verdikleri; izleme ve degerlendirme surecinde ise ulasilan bilgiyi arama amaclariyla karsilastirdiklari gorulmektedir. Calismanin tartisma bolumunde, ogrencilerin cevrimici bilgi arama stratejilerini gelistirmek amaciyla ustbilissel farkindaligin nasil ise kosulacagi uzerinde durulmustur.


Introduction
The rapid development in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) made changes not only in all areas of life but also in education; and ICT has started to be used in all phases of the process of education.Students are not able to easily and rapidly access online information sources which are increasing and diversifying every day.As for Aşkar and Mazman (2013) with the rapid increase in information and possibility to access and organize information, these sources have become primary sources of information.Individuals use the information on web for various reasons such as education, business life, shopping, banking transactions, booking, taking directions and learning about the weather condition.
Today it is possible to access many resources on any subject through internet.However, it is the user who decides whether this information accessed over internet is true and fits their objective (Kılıç Çakmak, Karaoğlan Yılmaz, & Yılmaz, 2015).In most cases, users face the problem of disorientation and do not know where they are, where they will go and what they will do (Aşkar & Mazman, 2013).Studies carried out reveal that people have problems in specifying the search terms, reasoning out from the results, analyzing the source of information with a critical point of view and in organizing the process of search (Aşkar & Mazman, 2013;Griffths & Brophy, 2005;Tsai, 2009;Walraven, Brand-Gruwel, & Boshhuizen, 2008;Yalçınalp & Aşkar, 2003).Therefore, in order to make use of information sources on the internet properly, initially the students need to use the right strategies in online information searching process.

Online Information Searching Strategies
In the literature, it is seen that many definitions of "information searching" have been offered by researchers.For instance, Case (2002) defines it as conscious effort of gaining information in order to eliminate lack of knowledge or meet knowledge need.As for Wilson, it is searching with the aim of reach the goals as a result of a need.As seen in the definitions, it can be realized that information searching is an active and purposeful process.However, it is stated that people's information searching process can differ because of some social and personal differences (Hill, 1999;Hsu, 2014).For example, in his research Hill (1999) examined people's information searching behaviors and stated that users who need control in the process of information searching use only scanning and screening, whereas the users needing less control use in advanced searching acts like differentiating keywords and, metacognitive strategies, such as transferring and combining.In the study conducted by Schacter, Chung and Dorr (1988), it is revealed that during the process of searching information students prefer glance at random online sources instead of practising in a systematic and planned way and they have difficulty in finding information sources about the internet, but not in during well-structured information searching process.Moreover, when compared to inexperienced ones, experienced students are more questioner about truth and reliability of information on the internet.These findings refer that individual differences could lead to differences in OISS.Tsai and Tsai (2003) suggested a framework presenting an OISS.According to this framework, online information searching behaviors involve three domains as behavioral, procedural and metacognitive, and these three domains comprise control, disorientation, trial and error, problem solving, purposeful thinking, selecting main ideas, and evaluation strategies.The framework showing these three domains and involve strategies in the analysis of OISS are given in Table 1.
According to the framework in Table 1, behavioral domain is about the control and disorientation strategies containing students' main organization and surfing on the internet.In addition, while procedural domain is about the trial and error and problem solving strategies involving students' general approach in content searching on the internet, metacognitive domain is related to the purposeful thinking, selecting main ideas and evaluation strategies required for self-organization on the internet and advanced cognitive activities about content (Tsai & Tsai, 2003).

Table 1.
A Framework for the Analysis of OISS (Tsai & Tsai, 2003).Rieh (2004), in his research examining the importance of searching strategies states that the students search information especially at their home rather than at school, and in this process because mostly they aren't given any help from an expert, they act individually by not been given necessary guidance and leading.The studies conducted in the field have supported this result, as well; and have revealed that they have difficulty in managing the process and they cannot use appropriate strategies in this process since the students do not take necessary guidance and leading (Barrett, 2012;Fidel et al., 1999).About these situations, which might be related to people's awareness in searching process, MA is thought to play a determining role.

The Role of Metacognitive Awareness in Online Information Searching Process
In the framework proposed by Tsai and Tsai (2003), MA is a dimension of self-organization learning process and a strategy used in this process (Pintrich, 2000;Zimmerman, 1990).Self-organizing learner is defined as an individual who organize his own study, motivational level and behaviours by controlling in order to reach to the determined objectives (Pintrich, 1995).Self-organizing learners determine the most appropriate learning setting, use the time well, set challenging but achievable targets, follow their strategies to reach the targets, and make self-evaluation (Kaya, 2012).
According to the model developed by Pintrich (2000), self-organizing learning consists of four main stages as pre-thinking, monitoring, control, and reaction-reflection.During these processes, the students ask some questions such as "Which strategies should I use?" while planning their own learning process; "Am I going on the right way?" while monitoring; and "Was the strategy I used useful?" while evaluating their selves, they control the learning process (Yılmaz, 2014).As for MA about individuals' themselves and duties, it provides opportunities for them to plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning process with more critical way throughout these processes (Schraw & Moshman, 1995).Schraw and Denisson (1994) discussed individuals' MA in eight sub dimensions under main dimensions of knowledge of cognition and organization of cognition.
According to the framework in Figure 1, knowledge of cognition comprises of knowledge of how learning stages are applied (procedural knowledge), and knowledge of in which situation what and how can be applied (conditional knowledge).As for organization of cognition, it involves planning about how the learning process will be, from where it should start, which strategies should be applied (planning); managing information sources in the light of skills and strategies, and applying if it fits for purpose (information managing); while keeping learning process, controlling of effectiveness of knowledge level and applied strategies (monitoring); eliminating detected errors after monitoring (debugging), and the point reached at the end of the process, examining effectiveness of used strategies (evaluation) (Schraw & Denisson, 1994;cited by Yılmaz, 2014).(Schraw & Denisson, 1994).
Like in the learning process, in online information searching process individuals' MA are thought to play an important role in OISS at the point of organizing searching process, monitoring and evaluating.Researchers indicate resources on the relationship between MA and searching process and its use are needed (Bowler, 2010;Chiu, Liang, & Tsai, 2013;Tsai, 2001;Wu & Tsai, 2007).
The purpose of this study, which deals with the roles of MA mentioned above the relations of onlinesearching process with MA, is to examine the relationship between students' MA and OISS.The study conducted with this aim tries to find answers to the questions below: a) What is the level of the scores students had from OISS and MA inventories?b) Is there a significant relationship between students' scores from MA inventory and OISS inventory?c) What are students' opinions on the use of MA in online information searching process?

Method
In this part, the information about research design, participants, instruments and data analysis will be presented.

Research Design
In this study, mixed method research design, in which both qualitative and quantitative research methods used, was utilized in identifying the OISS and MA of undergraduate students.The reason to choose qualitative methods together with quantitative methods is to collect more in-depth data on the subject and to contribute to the understanding of the subject more comprehensively (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2008).

Participants
The study was conducted with the students who took Computer I and Computer II courses that are given at university level.The participants of the study of were 419 undergraduate students studying at different departments of a state university in Turkey at the end of the spring semester in 2014-2015 academic years.

Instruments
The instruments used in the study were: "OISS Inventory" developed by Tsai (2009) and adapted into Turkish by Aşkar and Mazman (2013); "MA Inventory" developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994) and adapted into Turkish by Akın, Abacı and Çetin (2007) and the student opinion form developed by the researcher.In addition, in order to identify the students' views on how they use MA in online information searching process, The Form of Determining Students' Opinions developed by the researcher was utilized.
OISS Inventory involves 25 items and seven factors which are disorientation, evaluation, purposeful thinking, selecting main ideas, trial and error, control and problem solving.It is a 6-point Likert type scale and the answers range given as: 1=Not like me at all, 6 = Very much like me.Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole scale is found as .91.And the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the factors in the scale range between .61 and .77.The lowest score one can get from the inventory is 25 while the highest score is 150.High score from the inventory corresponds to developed OISS (Aşkar & Mazman, 2013).
MA inventory enrolled 52 items and consists of 8 items: regulation of cognition, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge, planning, monitoring, evaluation, debugging, and information management.It's a 5-point Likert type scale and the items are arranged and scored in the following way: Never=1, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5= always.As a result of exploratory factor analysis, eight sub-factors were obtained under knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition main factors.These sub-factors are declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge, planning, monitoring, evaluation, debugging and information management.Concurrent validity revealed that there was .95correlation between the two scales.Item analysis revealed item-test correlation of the sub-scales ranged between .35 and .65.Internal consistency and test-re-test reliability of the inventory was found as .95(Akın et al., 2007).
The Form of Determining Students' Opinions developed in the scope of the research was used to identify how students use MA in online information searching process.The form developed by the researcher was given to four experts in the field of Instructional Technology to get their opinions, and it was put into final form in accordance with the feedback given by the experts.Opinion Form was applied to 32 students who were selected randomly from the participants.

Collection of Data
At the beginning of fall semester in 2014-2015 in the scope of the course how to read all my information sources and what all my information searching strategies were explained to the students.Then, during two academic semesters, students put into implementation various OISS by being given various activities.By this way, the students experience a certain set of knowledge and experience about online information searching.At the end of two academic semesters, by applying instruments to the students, students' OISS use, MA and opinions on this process were determined.

Data Analysis
Kolmogorow-Smirnov test was carried out to see whether the score of the students' OISS and MA levels show a normal distribution or not.It was found that the data did not show a normal distribution (p<.05).Therefore, Spearman Brown Rank Difference Correlation Method was used to identify the relationship in not normal distributing data analysis.In significance tests, (*).05 and (**).01 reliability level was taken into consideration in the study.
How students make use of MA in planning, searching process, monitoring and evaluation stages in online information searching process was analysed by considering the answers given to Determining the Students' Opinion Form.Descriptive and content analysis techniques were used to analyse the data collected with open-ended questions.In this study, as planning, monitoring and evaluation stages of metacognitive model produced by Brown (1987), descriptive analysis technique was applied.In addition, since codes were created by analysing the data collected from the students, content analysis was carried out.During the process of content analysis, the data were examined in detail by the researcher and classified, and then draft codes were created.The strategies followed by students before starting to online information searching process, during searching process and at the end of the process were classified into sub-themes.By the nature of information searching process in which the students' answers were examined, it was revealed that students' steps were not independent from each other and rank one within the other during monitoring and evaluation stages.Therefore, monitoring and evaluation themes were combined and addressed as a single theme.
The data obtained were coded by the researcher, and later the data collected were coded again by a second coder for the reliability of the study.Coding reliability was obtained by dividing the number of codes given by both coders to total code number.Coding reliability coefficient frequency was found as 88%.For the rest, difference with 12.00%, researchers reached a consensus.When examining the students' written statements, it was specified that the difference was due to the fact that some of the answers given by students fell under more than one sub-theme.For this reason, the frequencies given in the tables show the number of the codes, not the number of the students.

Results
The findings and discussion are presented respectively below.

Undergraduate Students' OISS and Findings in Relation to Scores Obtained from MA Inventory
In accordance with the first sub-question of the research, descriptive statistics, which is related to undergraduate students' MA and OISS levels, is presented at Table 2.
According to Table 2, the average score obtained from Undergraduate Students OISS Inventory is 113.59 (4.54 out of 6.00); and the average of scores MA Inventory is 198.61 (3.82 out of 5.00).In this regard, it can be stated that undergraduate students' OISS are advanced.Likewise, their MA is developed.When examining the sub dimensions in OISS Inventory, it is revealed all sub dimensions are advanced level.In addition, looking at sub dimensions of MA Inventory, it is clearly observed that again all sub dimensions are high level.

The Findings Related to Correlation between Undergraduate Students OISS and MA Scores
In accordance with the second sub question of the study, the results of the correlation analysis conducted to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the scores of OISS and of MA scores are given in Table 3.When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that there is a positive and significant relationship between MA and OISS (r = .67,p < .01)at a medium level.Likewise, it has been revealed that there's a positive and significant relationship between sub dimensions as evaluation, purposeful thinking, trial and error, selecting main ideas, control and problem-solving of OISS Inventory and the sub dimensions of MA Inventory.
However, a low-level significant relationship has been detected between disorientation sub dimensions of OISS Inventory, with regulation of cognition, conditional knowledge, planning, monitoring, debugging, information management sub dimensions of MA Inventory, and the whole MA Inventory.On the other hand, any significant relationship between the disorientation sub dimension of OISS Inventory, and procedural knowledge and evaluation sub dimensions have not been found.

The Findings Related to How Students Use MA in Online Information Searching Process
In this section, the findings related to how students use MA in online information searching process are presented.The data of the research have been analysed according to themes and subthemes created by Brown (1987) and the researcher, and frequencies and percent values of subthemes are given and presented at the tables.In addition, by supplying direct quotes from participants, a detailed picture of the study was presented.Table 4 shows themes and subthemes of answers of the students to the questions of subthemes "Before searching online information, how do you plan information that you will search?"When the Table 4 is examined, it is seen that 42.86 % of the students identify the key words related to searching subject in the form of brief summaries, before starting online information searching process.It could be said that while doing this, they partially summarize the subject and identify some key words.While planning, that the students use writing the subject in the question form and in the sentence form less was observed, as well.Some of the students' opinions are presented below: S3: "Initially, before searching information on the internet, I create a template of that subject in my mind.I do my searching according to that template".S7: "Firstly, I determine key concepts about the subject, and based on these concepts I do my searching.I examine some other subjects which have a direct relation to my subject.Initially, I search the subject as a whole.Later, I search key words and then related subjects, and finally I combine these three".
It can be stated that before searching the subjects most of them make a plan and select the main ideas.
In Table 5, the themes and subthemes of the answers given by the students to the questions of "What do you do to determine whether you move in accordance with searching plan, and to evaluate the appropriateness of found information to searching plan?" are presented.Table 5 shows that 34.69 % of the students evaluate the information by examining according to searching their goals.As for monitoring and evaluation process, it is understood that students use getting help from their peers the least.It is revealed that while searching in order to know whether they are on the right way or not, students make comparison mostly with searching goals and then examining information at other websites, and consulting to books, experts and their peers.It is thought that among the reasons of comparing found information during monitoring and evaluation process with information at other websites, there is effect of accessing to internet whenever and wherever the students want.Some of the students' opinions are given below: S2: "I examine information that I found.After comparing with source books I use that information".

S11: "I check whether given information meet my needs. I receive help from my friends and teachers, when required".
In general, when students' opinions about monitoring and evaluation during searching process, it is observed that from searching strategies, purposeful thinking is mostly used by students.It is specified that students examine the results of searching in terms of their goals and decide whether they go on searching or not accordingly.

Discussion, Conclusion & Implementation
According to findings obtained from the study, it is seen that there's a positive medium-level relation between MA and OISS.In addition, qualitative findings show that before starting searching process, students mostly create key words, and during the searching process they evaluate according to their searching goals to test whether they are on the right way or not.Blummer and Kenton (2014), by mentioning the importance of metacognitive knowledge in the process of searching, they indicate that people who have high metacognition follow more advanced searching strategies in searching process.Hofer (2004) claims that because undergraduate students recognize information as bare and certain, they could regard it unnecessary to search on additional web sites, or question the reliability and correctness of online sources.However, when qualitative findings are examined, it is specified that students evaluate to see whether they are on the right way or not by consulting to other information sources on other websites, books, experts, and peers.
Nowadays, students generally make use of computers and mobile devices in their learning process.Especially teachers by asking questions about the subject to the students during the lessons, want the students to reach information on the internet and they try to discuss about them.However, the students confront some problems such as disorientation, not thinking purposeful, not evaluating the correctness of information sources.It is claimed that these problems arise particularly in settings such as home where students are studying individually, and when guidance and leading decrease (Barrett, 2012;Fidel et al., 1999).To increase MA, providing students with guidance and leading about planning the searching process, monitoring and evaluation could be a solution.In their study, Tsai and Chuang (2005) by claiming that metacognitive activities play an important role in internet-based learning, they mention the necessity of improving students' epistemological beliefs by varying the metacognitive activity use.While in the classroom, this leading can be done by teachers, use of smart systems, adaptable setting and educational interface agents could be useful at home (Bromme, Pieschl, & Stahl, 2010;Cesur, 2013;Yılmaz & Kılıç Çakmak, 2012).Furthermore, the regular use of these guidance strategies may provide opportunity to the students to get used to them in time and to manage their own searching process more efficiently.It is thought that metacognitive guidance will have good effect on searching and learning performance, especially for the students who need guidance and leading in learning process; in other words, the students who have low level of self-organization skills.Researchers state that including planning, monitoring and evaluating implementations that will help students to organize their own metacognitive process in learning settings increase students' MA and accordingly MA enables to control and self-organization on students' thinking, learning process and output (De Bruin & Van Gog, 2012;Hartman, 1998;Yurdakul, 2004).
All in all, it is believed that developed MA will contribute to the development of their OISS.Certain educational measures can be taken both in traditional learning environments and in online environments to improve MA.The biggest responsibility here belongs to the teachers.Teachers could make activities intended to improve MA.Basically, teachers can use their supporting and guiding roles as a teacher and ask various questions to students to provide them with the opportunity to plan, monitor and evaluate the process of their own learning.During this process, students can ask the following questions in each phase: In the planning process, they can ask: "Which sources of information could be helpful in solving this problem?""What should I do initially in the process of searching?","Where should I start?", and "Which strategy should I follow?"etc.; in the monitoring process: "Am I progressing in the right direction?""Does the strategy I use work?", "What can I do differently?"etc.; and in the evaluation process, students can ask: "Did I access the right sources of information?","Are there any sources that I could not reach?","Do these sources work for me to solve this problem?"etc. (NCREL, 1995;cited by Yılmaz, 2014).In addition, it's important to conduct researches intended to support students' learning outcomes and life quality and that school curriculum helps student to search information and evaluate (Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis, & Vermetten, 2005).
It would be beneficial to carry out the study again on people from different age groups and educational levels such as primary, middle and high school to examine the generalizability of the results of this study which was on undergraduate university students.By this way, the change of MA and OISS in relation to age and educational levels could be compared.Furthermore, in order to examine the students' observable behaviours during information searching process, some techniques like analysing screencast and log data records would be applied.

Table 2 .
The Distribution of Scores of UndergraduateStudents OISS and MA Level.

Table 3 .
The Results of Correlation between Undergraduate Students OISS and MA Scores.

Table 4 .
Before Searching Information on Internet, Students' Opinions Related to PLANNING.

Table 5 .
Students' Opinions Related to MONITORING and EVALUATING Processes While Searching Information on  Internet.