The foundation of students' perceptions.

Abstract

Research on teaching and instruction revealed that the learner functions as a mediating variable determining both efficiency and efficacy of instruction. In this contribution one specific mediating variable is focussed upon, namely learners' instructional conceptions or ideas about good instruction. The proposed theoretical framework suggests that these conceptions determine in interaction with a concrete learning environment the perception of this learning environment. Additionally, research findings are presented of what is known already with respect to this theoretical framework.

Introduction

In research on teaching, researchers evolved from a behavioural paradigm towards adopting the mediating paradigm and acknowledging the impact of learners' conceptions on the potential effect of instruction. Not only students' and teachers' concrete behaviours influence the learning results, but also their cognitions, or more process-like variables, are important determinants of both efficacy and efficiency of instruction (Elen & Clarebout, 2001). Several studies (e.g. Winne and Marx 1982) indiacted that instructional interventions are effective only if learners are 'calibrated', made 'appropriate' to the instructional designer's intentions, and only if learners make use of the interventions (Butler & Winne 1995). Different studies (e.g. Andre 1979) illustrate that students' instructional conceptions mediate the learning environment's effect, and hence become an important variable to consider when designing learning environments. This contribution aims at fostering this line of research by analysing current research related to students' ideas about instruction in general and interventions in particular in view of elaborating a research framework and agenda. First a simplified theoretical framework is presented. In a second section research findings are analysed, summarising what is known already with respect to the current state of this theoretical framework.

A simplified theoretical framework

In order to come to terms with the large number of names used to refer to students' ideas the following theoretical assumptions are made. Firstly and in line with nearly the whole of the cognitive oriented research literature and especially most of the authors in the field of instructional design (see Reigeluth, 1983, 1999), it is assumed that two categories of person-related variables fundamentally influence learning behaviour and processes: cognitive and motivational variables. While these two categories are distinguished this does not imply that they are completely unrelated. It is important to note that this specific contribution focusses on cognitive variables. A second assumption contends that more stable and more fluid factors can be distinguished. Stable does not imply that the values of these variables cannot change. Rather it means that at a given point in time they can be regarded to act as an independent variable (e.g., domain specific knowledge). Fluid implies at least two things. First, the outlook of the factor is determined by the interaction of various other factors and secondly the factor itself does not exist outside of this interaction. A third assumption relates to cognitive variables. First, when discussing cognitive variables the classical distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1983) remains highly relevant. Second, the importance of the substance of knowledge cannot be denied. In this respect it is especially relevant to distinguish between metacognitive (Flavell, 1979) and domain-specific cognitive variables.

Taking these assumptions into account the following terminological clarifications can be made. Students' ideas about instructions refer to strongly held declarative knowledge elements about the relationship between instruction in general (e.g., role of the instructional agent) and instructional interventions in particular (e.g., use of a particular technological device) on the one hand and their learning on the other. These ideas will be referred to as 'instructional conceptions' In addition, epistemological conceptions as well as learning conceptions can also be identified. Epistemological conceptions refer to students' ideas about knowledge, learning conceptions refer to students' ideas about their own learning. All these conceptions are subsets of metacognitive declarative knowledge.

The term learning style refers to the procedural counterpart of instructional, epistemological and learning conceptions. This proposal implies that during the proceduralization process, all conceptions get integrated. While this looks to be a strong statement, there is sufficient relevant literature acknowledging that clearly identifying boundaries between these types of metacognitive conceptions, especially at the procedural level, is sheer impossible (see further). Finally, (instructional) perceptions are the result of the interaction between instructional conceptions and a specific learning environment. Whereas instructional conceptions refer to a more 'stable" variable, instructional perceptions are more fluid.

Research findings

Using the outlined framework the existing literature is analysed in view of identifying recurrent themes and issues. These themes and issues can be clustered in four questions. The first question relates to the substance of instructional conceptions: how do students conceive of the relationship between instructional interventions on the one hand and learning processes and outcomes on the other? A second question deals with the conceptions' development. Do instructional conceptions change over time and context? The third question explores relationships with other variables. The fourth question deals with the impact of instructional conceptions on perceptions, learning behaviour and eventually learning outcomes.

What conceptions do students hold?

A first category of studies aims at finding out students' conceptions about 'good' learning environments. Kember (2001) revealed two sets of conceptions, namely "didactic/reproductive" and "facilitative/transformative" conceptions. The first set represents students' ideas of teaching as 'a didactic process of transmitting knowledge'. The second set identifies teaching as a process of facilitating learning, where the student is responsible for learning independently with guidance from the teacher. Clarke (1994) concludes from his study that students hold a 'traditional view' on effective teaching. These students" effective teaching conceptions are associated with effective transmission of information. Similarly, Elen and Lowyck (2000) also showed that students hold 'classical views' about the main features of good instruction. Furthermore, it was indicated that instruction meets basic requirements if (a) information is well-structured and well-tuned to the students' level and, (b) students and instructional agents have mutual respect. Cooper and McIntyre's students (1994a, 1994b) see effective teaching and learning as a transactional process, integrating pupils' and teachers' concerns and interests.

Three studies of the University of Leuven, analysed the structure of higher education students' instructional conceptions. One study (Clarebout et al. 2000) revealed that both university and college students considered two important aspects to differentiate between different types of learning environments. Namely, the extent of support provided, and secondly the extent to which students are stimulated to work independently. In a similar study (Elen et al., 1998) students' conceptions were investigated by asking them to indicate characteristics of high quality university instruction. Six scales could be constructed suggesting that students are able to differentiate between different types of instructional interventions. A third study focussed on students' conceptions in different departments in one institution (Leonard et al., 2003). This study revealed that overall in students' minds good instruction means that the environment is challenging and provides sufficient support.

How do instructional conceptions develop?

Kember (2001) found that less experienced university students hold more 'didactical--reproductive' conceptions, while experienced students have more 'facilitative-transformative" conceptions. Lien and Lowyck (2000) report an interaction between level of secondary education and experience with university teaching with regard to 'providing handouts' and 'tutorial sessions'. Low-level secondary education students regard tutorial sessions to be less efficient while high-level secondary education students rated the value of handouts lower than all other students. Instructional conceptions also develop through frictions between students" actual conceptions and experience with an instructional context. In the ParlEuNet-project (Elen & Clarebout, 2001), students were confronted with an innovative learning environment. Students' instructional conceptions changed after working on this environment. While this finding confirmed that changes occur, changes were in the opposite direction than expected. Learners did not accommodate but became less calibrated to the environment. Hativa and Birenbaum (2000) found students to prefer teaching approaches they perceive as beneficial and helpful for learning but which they do not often encounter, while Cooper and McIntyre (1994b) indicate that students relate their conceptions of effective teaching to their personal experience.

How do instructional conceptions relate to other variables?

Kember (2001) pointed to the strong correlation between conceptions about knowledge, teaching and learning. For instance, students conceiving instruction as a didactic process of transmitting knowledge, believe knowledge to be defined by an authority and knowledge to be right or wrong. Buelens et al. (2002) also revealed the correlation between these different conceptions for beginning teaching assistants and by Clarebout et al. (2003a) for adults. Elen and Lowyck (2000) found a main effect of gender for the efficiency of lectures. More males than females regard lectures as being efficient. Additionally, Elen et al. (1999) observed that female students regard "providing ample support for learning" to be more important than male students. They also found an interaction effect between gender and task-orientation for the level to which students think "'good education" should encourage independent learning. Female students scoring low on task-orientation attach great importance to opportunities for independent learning, whereas the opposite is true for female students with a high score on task-orientation. For male students this relation was not found. In a study on students' conceptions about e-learning environments, gender was investigated as a major independent variable (Proost et al., 1997). Female students view technology more negatively and collaboration more positively than their male counterparts. However, Clarebout et al. (2003a) found no gender effect on instructional conceptions. All these findings seem to be incoherent and certainly leads to the conclusion that research on gender remains inconclusive.

With respect to the influence of discipline, some evidence is provided by Sander et al. (2000). Psychology students believed more in the efficiency of group work than did medical and business students. Elen et al. (1999) found that the engineering group scored the lowest for providing ample support for learning, while the biomedical students scored the highest on this scale. For the encouragement of independent learning they found an interaction between discipline and level of education. Bio-medical university students value independent learning less than their peers in higher education, while for the communication-education students this was not the case. Hativa and Birenbaum (2000) conclude that there are only small, be it significant, differences between engineering and education students. They suggest that these differences are probably the results of experience with certain teaching methods.

What is the impact of conceptions?

Research on the impact of instructional conceptions is influenced by theoretical statements about the need for calibration between students' instructional conceptions and assumptions underlying the learning environment. Winne and Marx (1982) most clearly argued that instruction becomes more effective when there is a calibration between instructional conceptions of the different actors involved. Similarly, Hativa (2001) contends that instructional processes become sub-optimal when instructional conceptions differ between the different actors involved. While these statements sound highly logical, research evidence is scarce. In various studies (e.g., Hativa, 2001) the lack of calibration and students" conceptions or perceptions are discussed as reasons for the lack of effects of potentially powerful learning environments. However, the number of studies in which the relationship between instructional conceptions and learning activities are more directly dealt with is limited. Salomon (1984) is probably one of the older and rare examples. He showed the impact of students' instructional conceptions while working with television and printed materials in an educational setting. The way students' conceive of these two media, influenced mental effort they put in their learning task.

Discussion and conclusion

In view of elaborating a research agenda on instructional conceptions, this contribution aimed at establishing a theoretical framework and analysing the current literature. The theoretical framework brings conceptual and terminological clarification and indicates the relationships between the major constructs. In the analysis research was discussed about four major research questions. While the proposed theoretical framework provides a reasonable starting point, it is clear that it is currently oversimplified and naive. At least two elements need to be specified. First, the motivational area requires further specification and second, the processes involved in the interactions between the different conceptions and between the conceptions and the environment require far more soundly theorising. The presence of a theoretical framework may help to overcome a problem that appeared clearly in the research analyses. Indeed, the research analysis on instructional conceptions shows that the research is ad-hoc rather than systematic, descriptive and explorative rather than theory-driven.

Current studies not only miss a theoretical basis, also methodologically there are a number of problems. One problem relates to the research instruments. In all reported studies some type of survey is used. This means that it is assumed that learners have access to and can report about their own conceptions. Given the observation that conceptions refer to tacit knowledge, this is doubtful to say the least. More work is needed on alternative assessment approaches, less obtrusive measures of instructional conceptions. The attempts to infer instructional conceptions from decisions of participants in an instructional-design task (Clarebout et al., 2003b) sound promising in this respect. In any case, there is a need for consolidation of research instruments. A second category of methodological problem relates to the research participants. Findings may be seriously affected by the small band-width of research participants, who in nearly all cases are higher education students. This selection may result both in less than actual variation and in inadequate description of prevailing instructional conceptions. More attempts to broaden the research group are needed in line with the work of Clarebout, et al. (2003a). The use of student teachers constitutes, a specific problem in this research area. While there is no doubt that investigating pedagogical knowledge of student teachers is relevant, the possible interference between domain-specific knowledge and instructional conceptions raises serious doubts about the generalisability of the findings.

In the introduction reference was made to the mediating paradigm. In this contribution it was clarified that adopting this paradigm may offer the basis for resolving a number of inconclusive findings and may provide methodological orientations for interesting educational technology and instructional design research.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318.

Buelens, H., Clement, M., & Clarebout, G. (2002). University assistants' conceptions about knowledge, learning and instruction. Research in Education, 67, 44-57.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. W. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.

Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2000). Onderwijsopvattingen: Een exploratie naar herkomst en verbanden [Instructional conceptions: An exploration of origin and relations]. Tijdschritt voor Hoger Onderwijs, 18, 279-292.

Clarebout, G., Elan, J., & Goolaerts, W. (2003a, August). Instructional and epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the 10th EARLI Conference, Padua, Italy.

Clarebout, G., Leonard, R., Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2003b, May). Construction task to measure students' instructional conceptions. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop of the Scientific Network, Antwerp, Belgium.

Clarke, J. A. (1994, April). Tertiary students' perceptions of important events that occur in their learning environment. Paper presented at the annual AERA meeting, New Orleans, LA.

Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1994a). Patterns of interaction between teachers" and students' classroom thinking, and their implications for the provision of learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 633-646.

Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D., (1994b). Teachers' and pupils' perceptions of effective classroom learning: Conflicts and communalities. In M. Hughes (Ed.), Perceptions of teaching and learning (pp. 66-95). Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2001). An invasion in the classroom: Influence of an ill-structured innovation on instructional and epistemological beliefs. Learning Environments Research, 4, 87-105.

Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (1999, August). The relationship between, students' perceptions of approaches to university teaching and their learning style and epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the 8th EARLI Conference, Gotenborg, Sweden.

Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 421-444.

Elen, J., Lowyck, J., & Bamps, H. (1998). The relation between student's perceptions of problem-based learning and learning style components. In J. van Merrienboer & G. Moerkerke (Eds.), Instructional design for problem-based learning. Proceedings of the 3rd workshop of the EARLI SIG Instructional Design (pp. 281-290). Maastricht, the Netherlands: University of Maastricht.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Hativa, N. (2001, August). The tension between professors" and students' perceptions regarding the academic environment. Paper presented at 9th EARLI Conference, Freiburg, Switzerland.

Hativa, N., & Birenbaum, M. (2000). Who prefers what? Disciplinary differences in students' preferred approaches to teaching and learning styles. Research in Higher Education, 41, 209-236.

Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 205-221.

Leonard, R., Clarebout, G., Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (2003, August). Students' conceptions and guided independent learning. Paper presented at the 10th EARLI Conference, Padua, Italy.

Proost, K., Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1997). Effects of gender on perceptions of and preferences for telematic learning environments. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 370-384.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Riegeluth. C. M. (1999) (Ed.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, N J: Erlbaum.

Salomon, G; (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "though": the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.

Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 309-310. Winne, P.H., & Marx, R. W. (1982). Students' and teachers' view of thinking processes for classroom learning. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 493-518.

Jan Elen, University of Leuven, Belgium

Geraldine Clarebout, University of Leuven, Belgium

Elen is professor at the department of Educational Sciences, teaching courses in instructional design and didactics. Clarebout is a PhD-student studying tool use in computer-based learning environments.