1 / 29

Instructional conceptions

Instructional conceptions Their nature and impact Jan Elen, Rebecca Léonard, Geraldine Clarebout & Joost Lowyck CIP&T, K.U.Leuven TECFA, Université de Genève 12-02-04 Introduction Instructional conceptions: definition

emily
Télécharger la présentation

Instructional conceptions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Instructional conceptions Their nature and impact Jan Elen, Rebecca Léonard, Geraldine Clarebout & Joost Lowyck CIP&T, K.U.Leuven TECFA, Université de Genève 12-02-04

  2. Introduction Instructional conceptions: definition (general and specific) ideas of students about (aspects and / or components of) learning environments Prototypical example : Salomon (1984) television is “easy”; print is “tough”

  3. Introduction • Related constructs / approaches • “cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning” (Peterson, 1988) • “beliefs about pedagogy” (Van Etten, Van Etten, & Pressley, 1997) • “attitude toward educational use of the Internet” (Ness, Duggan, Morgan, Kim & Wilson, 1999) • “beliefs about how teaching should take place” (Kember, 2001) • “preference; what students hope for” (Sander, Stevenson, Kind & Coates, 2000)

  4. Structure • Why? • Theoretical framework • Nature of instructional conceptions • BooiZ-study : methodological essentials • Discussion and conclusions

  5. instructional optimism / the ‘negative’ answer learner optimism / the ‘positive’ answer Why study instructional conceptions ? Instructional devices not (adequately) used Growing importance in ID of process variables Kabisa 2004 Martens et al. Learners become co-designers (open learning environments; CSCL, learning communities)

  6. Other moderating variables Feedback loops Other contextual elements Theoretical framework (simplified) Instructional conceptions Learning Activities/ Processes Perceptions Learning Environment

  7. The nature of instructional conceptions • Particular category of (metacognitive) knowledge(Elen, Proost, & Lowyck, 1996) • declarative (elements, demands, affordances)/ procedural (function attribution, use) • Mediates perceptions(e.g., Trigwell & Prosser, 1999) • Moderates impact of instructional environment (e.g., Elen, 1995)

  8. The nature of instructional conceptions • Different objects • general (‘high quality instruction’) • goals • role of students / instructional agents • specific • tools / approaches (characteristics, functions) • features (tools / approaches) • [not included : task]

  9. BooiZ-study: methodological essentials • Questionnaire • 2 parts • instructional conceptions (3 educational goals [descriptions of LE], 41 features) • perceptions / activities • N= 2132 / 8 departments (1st, 3rd (5th) year) • Construction task • students are asked to design a course • 6 categories / 52 instances • N = 41 / 8 departments(1st, 3rd (5th) year)

  10. Substance: some findings • Van Etten et al. (1997) • ‘crucial role that instructors play in the educational process’ • Kember (2001) • distinction between didactic/reproductive and facilitative/transformative view • Stebler & Reusser (1996) • clear ideas about benefits of small-group collaborative work

  11. Substance: own studies • Essay-type (Elen & Lowyck, 2000a) [qualitative study, 244 freshmen] • ‘good education’ when instructional agent considers needs of students and directs them • distinction between learning and studying • specific ideas about quality features specific instructional elements • University – college study (Elen et al., 1999; Clarebout, et al., 2000) [quantitative (n= 414); sophomores; 2 universities, 2 colleges, 9 programs] • 2 scales : encompassing support (9 items; alpha = .75) >encouraging independent work (2 items, alpha = .67)

  12. Substance: own studies • Efficiency – effectiveness study (Elen & Lowyck, 1998; Elen & Lowyck, 2000b) [quantitative n= 489 / university] • 2 scales : contribute to reduction of study time / contribute to study results • different results on both scales for specific interventions • highest scores for traditional interventions (lectures, practical sessions, exercises) lowest for ‘new type of interventions (looking up on the Internet, going to the library)

  13. Substance: BooiZ • Factor analysis on 41 items • Two-factor solution (41,32% explained variance) • Two scales: • ‘a learning environment with safe challenges’-scale 40 items, loadings > .40;  = .96 • ‘the students memorize a lot of information’ 1 item, loading = .56

  14. Substance: BooiZ • Second factor analysis on 40 items • Six-factor solution (53,62% explained variance) + oblique rotation • Six scales: (factor loadings > .40) • ‘a student-centred LO’-scale (9 items,  = .87) • ‘a challenged LO’-scale (5 items,  = .76) • ‘an individualized LE’-scale (2 items,  = .73) • ‘an active contribution LE’-scale (2 items,  = .73) • ‘an exercise’-item (1 item, factor loading = .71) • ‘a teacher-centred LO’-scale (6 items,  = .80) => 25 items; 15 items removed • intercorrelation .36 - .70

  15. Substance: BooiZ • questionnaire

  16. SCLE Challen-ging LE Differen-tiation Active contri-bution Exerci-sing LCLE SCLE 1,00 - - - - - challenging LE 0,64 1,00 - - - - Differentia-tion 0,66 0,51 1,00 - - - Active contribution 0,58 0,48 0,46 1,00 - - exercising 0,51 0,43 0,43 0,36 1,00 - LCLE 0,70 0,60 0,58 0,45 0,42 1,00 Substance: BooiZ • Pearson correlations between the six scales

  17. r1, r5, gen1, gen3, gen5, ger1, ger5, p1, p3, p3, p5, go1 G k3, go1 r1,r3, r3, ger1, ger3, ger3, ger3, ger5,b1, b3, b5,w3,gen1, gen5, k1, k1, k3, p1 w1, b5 D E F r5, b3 r1 w1, w3, go3, p5 A B C - support - student-characteristics - student-activities 1 2 3 - content - method 4 - evaluation 5 Substance: BooiZ • Construction task

  18. Relationship with other (process) variables: some findings • Kember (2001) • beliefs about teaching closely linked to beliefs about the nature of knowledge and conceptions of learning

  19. Relationship with other (process) variables: own studies • Parents study (Clarebout, Elen, & Goolaerts, 2003) [quantitative; 536 parents; questionnaire 50 items] • Instructional conceptions and epistemological beliefs in same scales (modern vs. classical beliefs) • University - college study • Instructional conceptions - perceived goal orientation • ‘encompassing support’ less important when goal relates to acquisition of meaningful / applicable knowledge • 15% of variance in encompassing support-scale explained by learning style scales

  20. Relationship with other process variables: BooiZ • Questionnaire • sign. influence of study behavior on memorizing (small ES) • Sign. influence of goal orientation on memorizing (big ES)

  21. Development: Some findings • Kember (2001): beliefs do change over time • “… it does appear necessary to confront students with the incompatibility of their current beliefs. They cannot come to appreciate a facilitative/transformative model of the teaching and learning process unless exposed to teaching based upon these premises.” (p. 218) • Stebler & Reusser (1996) : • clear agreements among students and teachers of the same class (benefits of small-group collaborative work)

  22. Development : own studies • Short-term • ParlEuNet-project (Elen & Clarebout, 2001) [quantitative, 139 students (aged 15-17)] • after participation : less favorable towards collaboration and use of technology • Long-term • University - college study • Encompassing support regarded to be less important by university students • differences between institutions • Engineering < communication-education, economics < biomedical for encompassing support

  23. Development: BooiZ • Questionnaire • sign. influence of department on ALL scales (small to big ES) • sign. influence of study year on : safe challenges LE, memorizing, SCLE en activity (small ES) • Construction task • Indications of development

  24. Impact : Some findings • Hess et al. (1999) • behavioral correlates for attitudes towards Internet e.g., favorable attitude associated (no causal relationship !) with • choosing classes that use the Internet, • greater frequency of Internet use both in general and for educational purposes, • greater number of reasons for using the Internet for education, • greater number of Internet features used

  25. Impact : Some findings • Kember (2001) • “It was found that the attitudes to and ability to cope with study were influenced by a coherent set of beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning”

  26. Impact : BooiZ • Questionnaire • sign. influence of instructional conceptions on perceptions (small ES)

  27. Discussion and conclusions • Lack of consistent and generally agreed upon theoretical framework • No research agenda : ad hoc research; highly descriptive • Lack of clear definition (distinction between: instructional conceptions, instructional beliefs, instructional perceptions) • Mixture of research instruments

  28. Some forthcoming studies • Unified theoretical framework • Unified instrument • Systematic studies on impact

  29. Some forthcoming studies • Impact on use of adjuncts aids (South-Africa) [with F. Louw] • Moderating role of instructional conceptions on effects of PLE versus traditional LE (Ghana) [with F.K. Sarfo] • Impact on tool use in LE for complex learning, interaction with pedagogical agent (Belgium)

More Related