Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Capturing teacher students’ emotional experiences in context: does inquiry-based learning make a difference?

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study teacher students’ contextual learning experiences were examined longitudinally in authentic study environments using the contextual activity sampling system, a means of mobile-supported experience sampling. The students’ (n = 9) experiences were first recorded during a 2 week period in their first year of study. The same measurements were repeated again for a 2 week follow-up in the second year, accompanied by interviews before and after the follow-up. The first year of study consisted mostly of lectures and ordinary small-group work, whereas the second measurement period ran parallel to the completion of an intensive inquiry-based project, which was the focus of the present study. A multivariate analysis of variance revealed that studying during the inquiry-based period produced stronger experiences of being challenged as well as negative affects than the teacher-centered period. The participants’ experiences of competence, commitment and positive affects did not differ during the two periods. However, interview data indicated that the participants enjoyed the inquiry-based period and that the work was intensive. Contextual data and interviews were also used to describe students’ experiences during one particular study session during the inquiry-based project. The results suggest that negative affects may be an essential part of the process of gradually learning to take responsibility for both individual and collaborative learning processes. Possibilities for using experience-sampling methods to analyze collaborative learning are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 36(5), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. F. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 373–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000). Process and product in problem-based learning (PBL) research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 185–198). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 579–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies in flow and consciousness (pp. 15–35). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 73–112). New York: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eteläpelto, A., Littleton, K., Lahti, J., & Wirtanen, S. (2005). Students’ accounts of their participation in an intensive long-term learning community. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eynde, P. O., & Turner, J. E. (2006). Focusing on the complexity of emotion issues in academic learning: A dynamical component systems approach. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36(5), 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a social-cognitive perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). Interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science Education, 11(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Volet, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2006). Characterising a teaching and learning environment conducive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. S. (2004). Teaching and learning through inquiry: A guidebook for institutions and instructors. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (1999). Individual ways of interacting with the learning environment—Are they related to study success? Learning and Instruction, 9(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (2000). Interaction between learning environment and expert learning. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 5(2), 90–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K., & Ahola, K. (1995). Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills in higher education? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(4), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K., Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2000). Progressive inquiry learning for children—Experiences, possibilities, limitations. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5), 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 275–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Models of concentration in natural environments: A comparative approach based on streams of experiential data. Social Behavior and Personality, 27(6), 603–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., Inkinen, M., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2008). CASS-methods and tools for investigating higher education knowledge practices. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P. Kirschner, & F. Prins (Eds.), International perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world, proceedings of the eight international conference for the learning sciences (ICLS 2008) (pp. 107–114). Utrecht: ICLS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, J. E., & Spiegel, D. K. (1969). Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data. Psychological Bulletin, 72(5), 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2005). Progress and open problems in educational emotion research. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauste von Wright, M. L. (2001). The function of curriculum and the concept of learning. In E. Kimonen (Ed.), Curriculum approaches: Readings and activities for educational studies (pp. 21–34). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190–222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2009). Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science, 37(5), 495–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, Y., Kunter, M., Ludtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 460–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study has been financed by the Academy of Finland (project number 116847). In 2011 the project was partially funded by Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation), RYM Indoor Environment Project (462054). We are thankful for the support we have received. The CASS methodology used in the study was developed in the Knowledge Practices Laboratory (KP-Lab), a research project funded by the EU. The article is one of research group’s many collaborative research efforts. The group is led by professors Kirsti Lonka, Kai Hakkarainen, and Katariina Salmela-Aro. We are grateful for the valuable work done by the other members in our research group: Hanni Muukkonen, Annamari Heikkilä, Kari Kosonen and Satu Jalonen. We also thank to Sofie Loyens for her insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Topi Litmanen, Kirsti Lonka & Lasse Lipponen

  2. Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Mikko Inkinen

  3. Department of Education, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Kai Hakkarainen

Authors
  1. Topi Litmanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsti Lonka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mikko Inkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lasse Lipponen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kai Hakkarainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Topi Litmanen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Litmanen, T., Lonka, K., Inkinen, M. et al. Capturing teacher students’ emotional experiences in context: does inquiry-based learning make a difference?. Instr Sci 40, 1083–1101 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9203-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9203-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation