|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Abstract
To provide insights about how women with breast cancer learn from
Interactive Cancer
Communication System (ICCS), this study examines how using different
service types
employing conceptually distinct pedagogical methods relates to
learning outcomes. As
expected, findings supported the constructivist idea that interactive
computer programs
may supplement the learning potential of information services
delivered via transmissionoriented
methods. Contrary to expectations, however, those who used information
services benefited less if they were more frequent users of
communication services.
1
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Introduction
While interactive cancer communication systems (ICCSs) have been found to
improve cancer patients' ability to find the information they want
(e.g., Gustafson et al.,
2001), research often fails to specify how people actually learn in
these settings. A
common, but inadequate, understanding of online health education for
cancer patients is
that people are passive receivers of information or "vessels into
which knowledge is
poured" (Berryman, 1991). This assumption encourages transmission, or
one-way, views
of knowledge that undervalue active learning and the degree to which
knowledge is
constructed as a result of communicating with others or interacting
with educational tools
that put information into context so people can make sense of it for
their own particular
life context. Importantly, evidence demonstrates that learners do
poorly in transferring
newly learned skills and knowledge to new situations when presented
out of context of its
use. The act of learning involves gaining understanding. Context is
critical for
understanding as "context gives meaning to learning" (Berryman, 1991).
Educational theories of learning have broadly focused on two views of
learning in
education: education as a transmission process, and education as a
constructivist process.
In a transmission view of education, the learner acquires knowledge
in a one-way process
in which the instructor, peer, or a Web resource teaches via the
provision of information.
For example, one common pedagogical method found in nearly all ICCSs
is posting
health information that is available for patients to read at their
convenience (e.g.,
2
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Gustafson et al, 2002), which viewed in isolation can clearly be
interpreted as a
transmission approach to health education. However convenient and
appropriate it may
be to provide patients access to educational materials on the Web,
this approach alone
does not take into account that a great amount of learning occurs as
a result of interaction
with others such as peers, experts, or mentors (Pea & Gomez, 1992)
and increasingly
through use of interactive computer tools that don't just transmit
information but also
take into account users' priorities, values and life context.
Transmission approaches to
education can be used with learning tools and technologies, such as
Internet learning
portals and communities of learning, but the transmission approach
alone minimizes the
potential role of these powerful technologies when used as the
primary educational
strategy (Warschauer, 2003).
Alternatively, a constructivist approach to learning encourages
active learners to
communicate with each other and interact with different resources in
maximizing
learning potential among students (Edelson et al., 1995). The
constructivist perspective
conceives of communication as a two-way process in which meaning is
created by both
parties, by means of dialogue (Dervin, 1981). In this model,
communication is a
transformative and creative experience for all involved and is more
than just the "passing
of static knowledge back and forth between participants" (Pea, 1994).
Interactions
between learners and with the instructor or educational program offer
the potential to
result in new, re-framed, or additional understanding. In this
approach, learning is linked
to the learner's discovery of external phenomenon (Piaget, 1970), and
is in agreement
with educational philosopher John Dewey's laboratory school approach
in its focus
(McDermott, 1981).
3
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Within a comprehensive ICCS, there is the opportunity to employ both
transmission and constructivist pedagogical strategies in enhancing
learning outcomes for
cancer patients. Passive venues such as static information may be
conceived of as
following a transmission approach to learning within an ICCS while
online discussion
and interactive programs may be considered to be more consistent with
constructivist
models of learning (Mayer, 2004).
In order to provide insights about how people learn within ICCSs, this paper
reports on how using different types of services relates to specific
learning outcomes
focusing on a particular ICCS called the Comprehensive Health
Enhancement Support
System (CHESS) "Living with Breast Cancer" program, which is a computer-based
system that provides patients and their families with a wide range of
services, including:
information, social support, decision support, and skills training.
CHESS was developed
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Center for Health Systems
Research and
Analysis (for more information on the CHESS breast cancer module, see
Gustafson et al.,
1993, 1998, 1999, 2001; 2002; Hawkins et al., 1997; McTavish et al.,
1995; McTavish,
Pingree, Hawkins & Gustafson, 2003; Pingree et al., 1996; Rolnick et
al., 1999; Shaw,
McTavish, Hawkins, Gustafson & Pingree, 2000; Shaw, Hawkins,
McTavish, Pingree &
Gustafson, in press; Taylor et al., 1994).
CHESS Service Types and Theorized Effects on Learning
CHESS offers three basic types of services, which are explicated as
they relate to
transmission-oriented and constructivist educational theories and
described below:
4
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Information Services
Information services are the primary communication strategy used in
most healtheducation
Web sites. They are user-driven in the sense that the user is the primary
determinant of where s/he goes and what s/he sees. There may be
prompts from the
computer, but the computer is not, for the most part, guiding the
user. The computer
tends to be a passive participant in the delivery of information to
the user; it tends not to
guide or direct. Information services would be categorized as a
transmission-oriented
pedagogical method. Examples of this would be Library Articles where
the user asks to
see articles on certain topics, or Personal Stories where the user
can read about the
experiences and thoughts of other individuals who faced the same
sorts of challenges that
the user faces. The user selects these services, indicates the kind
of information s/he
wants, and the computer delivers the information.
Communication Services
These services within CHESS are "conversational services" in that the computer
links people together so that they can communicate with one another
via the computer.
Through such communication, the user is presumed to learn, and the
medium by which
this information is acquired is the computer-mediated
person-to-person connection. The
people linked might be two patients or a patient with an expert or
clinician. In terms of
learning, research also indicates that informational support from
other people can be
valuable to people coping with a chronic illness. Informational
support refers to
receiving information from others regarding a variety of issues, and
benefits include
5
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
sharing important information and learning how to get what you want
(Gray, Fitch, Davis
& Phillips, 1997). Informational support can include sharing
information about one's
own experiences with breast cancer so other women know what to expect
or the sharing
of other medical information that one finds through other means
(e.g., the Internet,
television, doctors, brochures). Furthermore, the constructivist
framework argues that
much learning is social and takes place in "communities of practice"
where people
interact with, and learn from, one another in similar activities
(Lave, 1988). These may
be formal places such as a classroom, or less formal such as an online support
community. Sometimes learning is direct, but much more of this type
of learning occurs
informally or incidentally.
Communication services in CHESS include text-based, asynchronous bulletin
board style Discussion Groups to anonymously share information and support.
Historically, the Discussion Group service has consistently been the
most frequently used
service within CHESS (McTavish, Pingree, Hawkins & Gustafson, 2003).
The groups
are monitored by a trained facilitator to ensure that discussions are
supportive and do not
contain unchallenged inaccurate or harmful information. However, the
facilitator does
not take an active role in guiding the women about what they should
communicate about.
Communication services also include the ability to ask questions of a
Cancer Information
Specialist trained by the National Cancer Institute and receive a
response within 48 hours.
Interactive Services
In interactive services, the computer takes a more active role in
guiding the user,
making suggestions, offering feedback, identifying deficits, and
shaping the user's
6
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
behavior. In these services, the computer plays a role traditionally
identified as
counseling or teaching. Interactive systems use data about users to offer more
appropriate feedback because they appraise computer users' particular
contexts and/or
preferences. Interactive services include the following: Action Plan
that helps women
make healthy lifestyle changes; Decision Aid, which empowers women to make
treatment decisions based on their own values and priorities, Health
Tracking that tracks
women's symptoms and psychosocial status over time; and Journaling,
which guides
women though a series of guided writing exercises intended to help
them make sense of
their cancer experience and improve emotional well being.
Hypotheses
There are two primary hypotheses being examined in this study. The first
hypothesis, seeking to reaffirm past literature, is to demonstrate
that information,
communication and interactive services will each have an
independently positive effect
on learning outcomes.
H1: Information, communication, and interactive service use will be positively
associated with health information competence.
Second, based upon constructivist theory, it is hypothesized that
people who use
information services, which are delivered via a transmission-oriented
educational model,
will show improved learning outcomes when used in combination with
communication
services or interactive services that employ constructivist
pedagogical methods. It is
7
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
expected that the acts of communicating with others or using
Interactive Services that
take a more active role in guiding the user will enhance learning
outcomes beyond merely
reading static information services alone.
H2: The effect of information service use on health information
competence will
be amplified when people are more involved in communication or
interactive serivces.
Methods
Data
The data analyzed in this study were collected as a part of a larger
Digital Divide
Pilot Project (DDPP) where underserved breast cancer women in rural
Wisconsin and
Detroit, Michigan were given access to CHESS for 4 months. Both
pretest and a 4-month
posttest surveys were conducted with a sample of 231 patients (81%
return rate from 286
subjects). Subjects were paid $15 for each completed pre- and
post-test. 62.3% of the
DDPP participants were Caucasian, 35.9% African American, and 1.7%
other minorities.
Patients were identified through a variety of sources, including the Cancer
Information Service, hospitals and clinics, public health
departments, and the Medicaid
program. They were eligible if they were at or below 250% of the
Federal Poverty Level,
within one year of diagnosis or had metastatic breast cancer, not
homeless, and able to
read and understand an informed consent letter. All study
participants were loaned a
computer and given Internet access for 4 months. They also received
personal training to
learn how to use the computer and the Internet, but the majority of
time was spent on
8
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
learning how to use CHESS. Recruitment began in Wisconsin in May 2001
and ended in
April 2003. Detroit recruitment began in June 2001 and ended in April 2003.
Measures
Health information competence assessing a breast cancer patient's
perception that
she could get and use health information serves as our dependent
variable. This concept
is an appropriate constructivist measure for learning as it
prioritizes the individual's selfperception
about whether she has the information she needs to cope with cancer rather
than objective knowledge that is constructed by experts. Information
competence was
operationalized as an additive index (pretest _ = .75; posttest _ =
.79) of five items that
asked, on a five-point scale ranging from 0 = never to 4 = always, if
respondents know
what I want to learn about my health; can figure out how and where to
get information;
health information is more difficult to obtain than other information
(reversed); satisfied
with way I currently learn about health; or feel in control how and
what I learn about my
health.
Antecedent Variables
We controlled for a number of variables that are expected to possibly
influence
the relationship between independent and dependent variables in the
model. Specifically,
we controlled for basic demographics including age (M = 51.58, SD =
11.81), race
(62.3% Caucasian, 35.9% African American, and 1.7% other minorities),
live alone
(72.7% 'no' and 27.3% 'yes'), and education (0.9% some junior high,
10.4% some high
9
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
school, 31.2% high school degree, 29.9% some college, 12.1% associate
or technical
degree, 12.1% bachelor's degree, and 3.5% graduate degree).
[TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
In addition, we controlled for disease related factors such as stage of cancer
(70.1% early stage and 29.9% late stage) and number of days between
diagnosis and
intervention date (M = 117.48, SD = 130.30) because previous studies
suggest both are
associated with patient's levels of psychological adjustment and
distress (Carroll, 1998;
Keller, 1998). Finally, the pretest counterpart of the dependent
variable (M = 2.39, SD =
.72) was also controlled.
CHESS use
A browser was developed by our research team to automatically collect use data
on an individual keystroke level as participants used the system.
This capability enabled
us to track each user's code name, data, time spent, and URL of every Web page
requested.
The key variables of interest are three measures of CHESS service use:
Information (M = 35.46, Mdn = 16.89, SD = 56.78), Communication (M =
581.82, Mdn =
110.85, SD = 1426.31), and Interactive service (M = 27.84, Mdn =
9.88, SD = 52.86).
These measures are operationalized as total time spent (as measured
by minutes) in each
service during the four-month study period. In addition, we took the
logarithm of CHESS
use and used these as our independent variables because of the
positively skewed
distribution of the variables.
10
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
[TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]
Analytic framework
Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test the effect of CHESS
service use on the information competence. To examine main effect of
three types of
CHESS service use (H1), the group of control variables including
demographics was
initially entered in a regression model and then the pretest score of
the dependent variable
(i.e., information competence) was also included. Next, each of CHESS
service use was
added separately in order to assess whether this variable explained a
significant additional
part of the model variance. Since the three CHESS use variables were
highly correlated,
we followed this statistical guideline suggested by Agresti and
Finlay (1999) as a way of
reducing the effects of multicollinearity.
To test interactive effect among CHESS service use (H2), the same procedures
were repeated with demographics and pretest information competence
being controlled
first, followed by the main effects of three CHESS service use, and
finally by two
interaction terms. To address the issue of multicollinearity between
the product term and
its components, the main effect variables were standardized by
translating them into zscores
prior to creating the interaction terms (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
Results
Table 3 shows the results of a hierarchical regression model predicting breast
cancer patients' information competence. First, the influence of
demographic variables
11
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
did not appear to be strong, although younger women tended to feel
more competent in
dealing with health information than older women (_ = -.162, p <
.01). As expected, the
pretest counterpart of the dependent variable had a strong
significant relationship with the
dependent variable (_ = .485, p < .01). Taken together, the control
variables accounted
for a significant portion of the variance in the criterion variable
(26.3%, F(8,218)=9.734,
p < .01).
When amount of use of each of the three kinds of CHESS services were entered
separately after these control variables, two of the three CHESS use
variables were
significant. Interactive service use had a significant relationship
with information
competence (_ = .141, p < .05), even after controlling for
demographic variables and a
pretest counterpart of the dependent variable. Information service
use also had a
significant main effect on information competence (_ = .153, p <
.01). However,
communication service use was not significantly associated with the
dependent variable.
[TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
In addition to these main effects (H1), the two interaction terms
were included to
test whether use of the communication or interactive service modify
the effect of
information service use on patient's information competence (H2). As
shown in Table 3,
the interaction between information and communication services was
significant and
there was a trend toward interactive services amplifying the effects
of information
services though this interaction did not reach significance. Contrary
to our predictions,
there was a negative coefficient of the interaction between information and
communication service on health information competence (_ = -.235, p
< .01). In order to
12
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
examine the negative sign of the beta, we plotted this finding in
Figure 1. For both high
and low communication service users, information competence increased
as patients used
the information services more. However, the growth was greater for
users who used the
communication service less, which demonstrate that the use of
communication service
lessened the potential benefit of information service use.
However, consistent with our hypotheses, the relationship between the
information service use and information competence was stronger for
patients who spent
more time in the interactive service than for patients who do not (_
= .153, p < .10).
[FIGURE 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE]
Discussion
These findings partially support the first hypothesis in finding that
information
and interactive Services contribute to health information competence
while use of
communication services did not contribute to enhanced educational outcomes.
This study also partially supports the constructivist idea in the
second hypothesis
that more active pedagogical methods will enhance learning. While use of
Communication services did not enhance learning outcomes, results did
indicate that
intelligently designed computer programs may supplement and extend
the learning
potential of information services delivered via a
transmission-oriented pedagogical
approach. Researchers should continue to examine the best way to
develop interactive
services that can optimize specified learning outcomes.
One limitation of this study is that it looks at self-reported information
competence as a measure of learning and future research might also employ a
13
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
methodology that allows for a more objective measure of breast cancer
knowledge.
However, one of the theoretical arguments of constructivist learning
is that knowledge
should be constructed in a way that is most meaningful to the
learners themselves rather
than a one-way model of education. Surely, however, there is room for
some expertguided
learning in health education, as research indicates that women do
sometimes have
misperceptions about breast cancer treatments and causes.
Another limitation of this research is that it quantifies use of communication
services in terms of minutes but it seems likely that the mechanism
for the effects of
communication services is not how much time they use the services for
but rather the
type of issues people talk about (e.g., Shaw, Hawkins, McTavish,
Pingree & Gustafson,
in press). Communicating about the weather or what happened over the
holidays may
provide a sense of community between members but it is unlikely to
produce any tangible
educational outcomes. As Mayer (2004) argues, the volume of
discussion should not be
expected to contribute to learning if the content of those
conversations does not directly
relate to the educational effects being measured. Future research
should look not just at
how much dialogue occurs between patients within ICCSs but also what
they talk about
to determine how both the quantity and quality of interaction effects
learning outcomes.
On this note, it is worth reminding the user that while a trained facilitator
monitored the Discussion Groups in this study, by design the
facilitator did not take a
very active role in guiding conversation around specific educational
objectives. That
said, the CHESS model of online support groups is more structured
than the vast majority
of support groups on the Web, which do not have a facilitator at all
(Klemm at al., 2003).
No studies have been conducted on the effects of having a facilitator
or not within online
14
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
support groups, and future research should examine the added benefit
of a facilitator who
takes a more active role in guiding conversation around educational
objectives.
It is also important to note that this secondary analysis only
examined information
competence as an outcome, which was the most relevant dependent
variable available for
measuring the educational effects of using the various types of
services available within
CHESS. These findings say nothing about any number of other benefits
that may have
occurred as a result of using the communication services such as
enhanced social support
or emotional well-being, which are results that have been found in
previous CHESS
studies (Shaw, Hawkins, McTavish, Pingree & Gustafson, in press;
Shaw, McTavish,
Hawkins, Gustafson & Pingree, 2000).
Another thing to remember is that use of communication services did
not decrease
information competence but rather those who used information services
benefited less if
they were more frequent users of communication services. While this
finding runs
counter to the hypotheses put forth in this paper, it is consistent
with some previous
research on CHESS effects, which has found that more balanced use of
time between
information and Discussion Group have more positive results than
those who use the
system with a more lopsided bias toward use of the communication
services (Pingree,
Hawkins, McTavish & Gustafson, 2002) and generally speaking the total
amount of
minutes spent in by users in the communication services (particularly
Discussion Group)
was far more than was spent in either the information or interactive services.
Finally, while this article takes an important step forward in contributing to
understanding how people learn from ICCSs, the correlational analysis
is only suggestive
and an experimental design would provide the opportunity to more
precisely understand
15
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
how different types of service utilization contribute to health
education outcomes. A
current clinical trial funded by the National Cancer Institute being
conducted at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication
Research is employing an experimental design looking at the
differential effects of
providing users different configurations of CHESS services including
information,
communication (person-to-person) and interactive (computer-driven
tailoring and
coaching) services. While it is hypothesized that there will be some
knowledge from
providing users information services alone, it is expected that
offering information
services in combination with communication and interactive services
will demonstrate
significantly stronger outcomes. Results of this study will be
forthcoming and should
allow the opportunity to quantitatively demonstrate the added value
of constructivist
pedagogical methods. This article represents part of this effort by
offering a theoretical
framework and some quantitative insights about how users appear to
learn as a result of
using ICCSs.
16
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
References
Agresti, A., & Barbara, F. (1999). Statistical Methods for the Social
Sciences. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Berryman, S. E. (1991). Designing effective learning environments: Cognitive
apprenticeship models. Retrieved August 13, 2004 from
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/berry1.html
Carroll, S. (1998). Breast cancer part 3: Psychosocial care.
Professional Nurse, 13(12),
877-883.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S. &. Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive
apprenticeship: Teaching the
In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in
instructional design. Englewood Cliifs, NJ. Educational Technology
Publications.
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Gray R., Fitch M., Davis C., & Phillips C.A., (1997). A qualitative
study of breast cancer
self-help groups. Psycho-Oncology, 6, 279-289.
Gustafson, D.H., Hawkins, R.P., Boberg, E.W., McTavish, F., Owens,
B., Wise, M.,
Berhe, H., & Pingree, S. (2002). CHESS: 10 years of research and
development in
consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 65, 169-177.
Gustafson, D.H., Hawkins, R.P., Pingree, S., McTavish, F., Arora, N.,
Mendenhall, J.,
Cella, D.F., Serlin, R.C. Apantaku, F.M., Stewart, J.,& Salner, A.
(2001). Effects of
computer support on younger women with breast cancer. Journal of
General Internal
Medicine, 16, 435-445.
crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, learning, and
instruction (pp. 453-
494). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Dervin, B. (1989). The Sense-Making Approach. In R.E. Rice & C.K.
Atkin (Eds.),
Public Communication Campaigns. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Edelson D., Pea R. D., & Gomez L. (1995). Constructivism in the collaboratory.
17
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Gustafson D.H., Hawkins, R., Boberg, E., Pingree, S., Serlin, R.E.,
Graziano, F., & Chan
C.L. (1999). Impact of a patient-centered, computer-based health
information/ support
system. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(1), 1-9.
Gustafson, D.H., McTavish, F.M., Boberg, E., Owens, B.H., Sherbeck,
C., Wise, M.,
Pingree, S.,& Hawkins, R.P. (1999). Empowering patients using
computer based health
support systems. Quality in Health Care, 8, 49-56.
Gustafson D.H., McTavish, F., Hawkins, R.D., Pingree, S., Arora, N.
Mendenhall, J., &
Simmons, G.E. (1998), Computer support for elderly women with breast
cancer. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 280(15), page 1305.
Gustafson, D.H., Wise, M., McTavish, F.M., Wolberg, W., Stewart, J.,
Smalley, R.V., &
Bosworth, C. (1993). Development and pilot evaluation of a
computer-based support
system for women with breast cancer. Journal of Psychosocial
Oncology, 11, 69-93.
Hawkins, R.P., Pingree, S., Gustafson, D.H., Boberg, E.W., Bricker,
E., McTavish, F.,
Wise, M., & Owens, B. (1997). Aiding those facing health crises: The
experience of the
CHESS project. In R.L. Street, W.R. Gold & T. Manning (Eds.), Health
promotion and
interactive technology: Theoretical applications and future
directions (pp. 79-102).
Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, M. (1998). Psychosocial care of breast cancer patients.
Anticancer Research, 18,
2257-2260.
Klemm, P., Bunnell, D., Cullen, M., Soneji, R., Gibbons, P. &
Holecek, A. (2003).
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture
in everyday life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure
Discovery
Learning?: The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American
Psychologist, 59, 14-
19.
McDermott, J. J. (1981). The philosophy of John Dewey. Chicago:
University of Chicago
Press.
McTavish F.M., Gustafson D.H., Owens B.H., Hawkins R.P., Pingree S., Wise, M.,
Taylor J.O., & Apantaku, F.M. (1995). CHESS: An interactive computer
system for
women with breast cancer piloted with an underserved population.
Journal of Ambulatory
Care Management, 18, 35-41.
McTavish, F.M., Pingree, S., Hawkins, R.P. & Gustafson, D. (2003).
Cultural differences
in use of an electronic discussion group. Journal of Health
Psychology, 8, 105-117.
Online support groups: A review of the research literature. CIN:
Computers, Informatics,
Nursing, 21, 136-142.
18
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful
ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for
education. In G.
Salomon (Ed.) Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations,
(pp. 47-87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pea, R. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning
environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences,
3(3), 219-225.
Pearlin, L. (1985). Social structure and processes of social support.
In S. Cohen & S.
Syme (Eds.). Social support and health (pp. 43-60). Orlando, Fl:
Academic Press.
Electric Media, 40, 331-351.
Pingree, S., Hawkins, R.P., McTavish, F. & Gustafson, D.H. (2002).
How rural and
minority breast cancer patients use CHESS. Paper presented to APA
conference on
Enhancing Outcomes in Women's Health: Translating Psychosocial and Behavioral
Research into Primary Care, Community Interventions, and Health
Policy. February 21-
23, 2002, Washington, D.C.
Rolnick, S.J., Owens, B., Botta, R., Sathe, L., Hawkins, R.P.,
Cooper, L., Kelley, M., &
Gustafson, D.H. (1999). Computerized information and support for
patients with breast
cancer or HIV infection. Nursing Outlook, 47, 78-83.
Shaw, B., Hawkins, R.P, McTavish, F., Pingree, S. & Gustafson, D. (in
press). Effects of
insightful disclosure within computer mediated support groups on
women with breast
cancer. Health Communication.
Shaw, B., McTavish, F., Hawkins, R.P., Gustafson, D., & Pingree, S. (2000).
Experiences of women with breast cancer: Exchanging social support
over the CHESS
computer network. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 135-149.
Stanley, L. (2001). Beyond access. San Diego, CA: UCSD Civic Collaborative.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the
child. New York: Orion
Press.
Pingree, S., Hawkins, R.P., Gustafson, D.H., Boberg, E., Bricker, E.,
Wise, M., Berhe, H,
& Hsu, E. (1996). Will the disadvantaged ride the information highway? Hopeful
answers from a computer-based health crisis system. Journal of
Broadcasting and
19
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Taylor, J.O., Gustafson, D.H., Hawkins, R.P., Pingree, S., McTavish,
F., Wise, M., &
Carter, M. (1994). The comprehensive health enhancement support
system. Quality
Management in Health Care, 2, 36-43.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking
the digital divide.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 231)
Age
Mean (SD)
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Other minorities
Live alone
Yes
Education
Some junior high
Some high school
High school degree
Some college
Associate or technical degree
Bachelor's degree
Graduate degree
Days between diagnosis and intervention
Mean (SD)
Stage of cancer
Early stage (stage 0,1,2)
51.58 (11.81)
144 (62.3%)
83 (35.9%)
4 (1.7%)
63 (27.3%)
2 (0.9%)
24 (10.4%)
72 (31.2%)
69 (29.9%)
28 (12.1%)
28 (12.1%)
8 (3.5%)
117.48 (130.30)
162 (70.1%)
21
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of CHESS service use during four
months (minutes)
Mean
30.23
433.45
SD
40.60
830.86
34.42
Median
16.33
104.46
9.22 22.86
CHESS service use
Information service
Communication service
Interactive service
22
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting information
competence (posttest)
Control variables
Age
Ethnicity
Live alone
Education
Days between diagnosis and
intervention
Early or late stage
Incremental R2 (%)
Information Competence (pretest)
Incremental R2 (%)
CHESS use
Interactive service l
Communication service l
Information service l
Incremental R2 (%)
Interactions
Information service ¥
Communication service
Information service ¥
Interactive service
Incremental R2 (%)
Total R2 (%)
Note:
- Main effects of CHESS use were entered separately to the regression
model in order to
avoid multicollinearity problems. However, incremental R2 of 'CHESS use' block
(2.6%) reflects the value when all three variables are entered together.
- l Log transformed due to the high skewness.
- p <.10*, p < .05**, p <.01***
2.3**
31.1***
Beta (standardized)
-.162
.039
.040
.037
.096
-.063
.485
.141
.093
.153
-.235
.153
t
-2.630***
.640
.662
.649
1.653
-1.082
4.3
8.308***
22.0***
2.410**
1.495
2.635***
2.6*
-2.628***
1.707*
23
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Figure 1. Interaction between Information and Communication service
use in predicting
four-month information competence (estimated marginal means).
Note:
- Pretest information competence was controlled.
24
Figure 2. Interaction between Information and Interactive service use
in predicting fourmonth
information competence (estimated marginal means).
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
Low
Note:
- Pretest information competence was controlled.
Information Competence
How People Learn Using Interactive Cancer Communication Systems
Interactive service High
Interactive service Low
Information service
High
25
|
