European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 385–400 | Cite as

Implementing process-based instruction in regular university teaching: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues

  • Simone Volet
  • Tanya McGill
  • Harriett Pears
Article
Received:

Abstract

This paper reports an experimental field study aimed at examining whether a process-oriented form of instruction (combining program planning and interactive teaching) which produced outstanding results when implemented by a tutor/researcher (see Volet, 1991) could be used successfully by regular university tutors given detailed guidelines but minimal training. A second aim of the study was to establish the respective contribution of the two sub-components of the instructional package. The results of the study were inconclusive and raise a number of conceptual, methodological and practical issues. As in the initial study, experimental students were more satisfied with their learning and for those who had the choice, more inclined to undertake further studies in computing but the intervention did not affect students’ achievement. The results of the study are discussed in relation to the earlier work, and suggestions are made for bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice in higher education.

Key words

Higher education Instructional methods Metacognitive processes Self-regulated learning Strategy training 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages.Memory and Cognition, 9, 422–433.Google Scholar
  2. Bayman, P., & Mayer, R.E. (1988). Using conceptual models to teach BASIC computer programming.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielaczyc, K., Brown, A.L., & Pirolli, P. (1994). Collaborative explanations and Metacognition: Identifying successful learning activities in the acquisition of cognitive skills. University of California, Berkeley Report No. CSM-8.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R.E. (1980). Studying programmer behavior experimentally: The problems of proper methodology.Communications of the ACM, 23, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.M. Markman (Eds.),Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology: Cognitive Development (Vol. 1, pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Dalbey, J., & Linn, M.C. (1985). The demands and requirements of computer programming. A review of the literature.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 253–274.Google Scholar
  8. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Schrooten, H. (1992). Cognitive effects of learning to program in Logo: A one-year study with sixth graders. In E. De Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),Computer-based Learning Environments and Problem-solving (pp. 207–228): Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. de Jong, F. (1993).The complementarity of constructivist and self-regulation instructional approaches. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Aix-en-Provence, France, September.Google Scholar
  10. Kurland, D.M., Pea, R.D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986) A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 429–458.Google Scholar
  11. Linn, M.C., & Clancy, M.J. (1992). Can experts’ explanations help students develop program design skills?International Journal of Man0Machine Studies, 36., 511–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Linn, M.C., & Clancy, M.J. (1992). The case for case studies in programming problems.Communications of the ACM, 35, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Linn, M.C., Sloane, K., & Clancy, M. (1987). Ideal and actual outcomes from precollege Pascal instruction.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lonka, K. (1993).Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Aix-en-Provence, France, September.Google Scholar
  15. McGill, T., & Volet, S.E. (1995). An investigation of the relationship between algorithm quality and program quality.SIGCSE Bulletin, 27, 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miles, C. (1988). Cognitive strategies: Implications for college practice. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.),Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation (pp. 333–347). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension — fostering and comprehension — monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palincsar, A.M., Ransom, K., & Derber, S. (1989). Collaborative Research and Development of Reciprocal Teaching.Educational Leadership, Dec. 88/Jan. 89, 37–40.Google Scholar
  19. Paris, S.G., & Byrnes, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation of learning in the classroom. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.),Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement (pp. 169–200). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Schwartz, S., Perkins, D.N., Estey, G., Kruidenier, J., & Simmons, R. (1989). A “metacourse” for Basic: Assessing a new model for enhancing instruction.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 263–297.Google Scholar
  21. Simons, P.R., & Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1986). Self-regulation in knowledge acquisition: A selection of Dutch research. In G. Beukhof & R.J. Simons (Eds.),German and Dutch research on learning and instruction: General topics and self-regulation in knowledge acquisition (pp. 101–135). Den Haag, The Netherlands: SVO/OTG.Google Scholar
  22. Veenman, M.V.J., Elshout, J.J., & Busato (1991). Metacognitive mediation in learning with Computer Based Simulations.Memo nr. 120, VF-project Knowledge Acquisition in Formal Domains, 1–16.Google Scholar
  23. Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1993, September).Process-oriented instruction in thinking strategies. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
  24. Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1994). Design principles of process-oriented instruction. In F.P.C.M. de Jong & B.H.A.M. van Hout-Wolters (Eds.),Process-oriented instruction and learning from text (pp. 15–26). Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Volet, S.E. (1991). Modelling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university students’ learning.Learning and Instruction, 1, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Volet, S.E., & Chalmers, D. (1992). Investigation of qualitative differences in university students’ learning goals based on an unfolding model of stage development.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 17–34.Google Scholar
  27. Volet, S.E., & Styles, I.M. (1992). Predictors of study management and performance on a first-year computer course: The significance of students’ study goals and perceptions.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 423–449.Google Scholar
  28. Volet, S.E., & Lund, C.P. (1994). Metacognitive instruction in introductory computer programming: A better explanatory construct for performance than traditional factors.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 297–328.Google Scholar
  29. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon, Portugal/ Springer Netherlands 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Volet
    • 1
  • Tanya McGill
    • 1
  • Harriett Pears
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems, School of Mathematical and Physical SciencesMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations