1

Instructional conceptions

Their nature and impactJan 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

General Own studies

BooiZ

Substance

Rel. Other variables

Development

Impact

5

Why study instructional conceptions ?

Instructional devices not (adequately) used

Kabisa 2004Martens et al.

Learners become co-designers (open learning environments; CSCL, learning communities)

instructional optimism / the ‘negative’ answer

learner optimism / the ‘positive’ answer

Growing importance in ID

of process variables

6

Other moderating variables

Other contextual elements

Feedback loops

Theoretical framework (simplified)

Instructional conceptions

Learning Environment

PerceptionsLearning Activities/ Processes

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 itemsTwo-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

41 items

memorizing

Lecturer-centered

exercises

Activecontributions

Differen-tiation

challenging

Student-centered

Safe andchallenging

16

Substance: BooiZ• Pearson correlations between the six scales

  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

17

Substance: BooiZ• Construction task

r1, r5, gen1, gen3, gen5, ger1, ger5, p1, p3, p3, p5, go1

w1, w3, go3, p5r1

w1, b5r1,r3, r3, ger1, ger3, ger3, ger3, ger5,b1, b3, b5,w3,gen1, gen5, k1, k1, k3, p1

- support

r5, b3

k3, go1

- evaluation

- content- method

- student-activities

- student-characteristics

G

D

A CB

FE

1 2

5

4

3

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)