The items include the most important characteristics of the WBII and WBDI (Jonassen, 2000; Tam, 2000; Willis, 1995).
Lastly, treatment was coded as one for WBDI and two for WBII.
The treatment, independent variable; WBII and WBDI, had to levels.
The difference between WBDI and WBII was sourced from timing in the presentation of the lecture notes and the questions directed in the discussion forum.
In WBIIG, lecture note related to each week, in contrast to WBDI, was not provided to the pre-service teachers at the beginning of that week.
Cohen and Cohen (1983) offered the following values; small, ES = .20; medium, ES = .50; and large ES = .80 [ES = (Mean of the WBII group--Mean of the WBDI group / standard deviation of WBDI group)].
This means that pre-service teachers taught by the WBII got higher scores on the final exam than the pre-service teachers instructed by the WBDI. Moreover, the pre-service teachers in the WBDIG developed a more positive attitude towards web-based course than the pre-service teachers in the WBIIG.
The instructor-completed observation was compared by those completed by the outside observers (one experienced teacher for each group) and the interrater reliabilities for the WBII and WBDI were .92 and .88, respectively.
The following conclusions are offered: (a) WBII was more effective on the pre-service teachers' achievement than WBDI did, (b) WBDI was more effective on pre-service teachers' attitude towards WBC than WBII did, and (c) there was no significant difference between the WBIIG and WBDIG on metacognition.
As a result of that the facilitative questions in the WBII focused on the students' experiences, readings about the concepts and exploring ill-structured cases (videos or episodes) rather than on the definitions and concepts in the lecture notes as in the WBDI. Questions on experiences and ill-structured cases were the heart of the forum discussions in WBIIG to facilitate discovering the concepts of the topic and pre-service teachers presented their ideas by focusing on them.