Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 23–41 | Cite as

Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design

  • Xun GeEmail author
  • Patricia L. Hardré
Original Paper

Abstract

A major challenge for learning theories is to illuminate how particular kinds of learning experiences and environments promote the development of expertise. Research has been conducted into novice-expert differences in various domains, but few studies have examined the processes involved in learners’ expertise development. In an attempt to understand the development of expertise in instructional design (ID) among graduate students, this study aimed to investigate (1) the patterns of expertise development among ID learners over an extended period; (2) the roles of expert modelling, peer feedback, self-reflection and participation in a supportive learning community in learners’ expertise development; and (3) the interactions of individual differences and the learning environment in learners’ expertise development. A qualitative design was used to investigate students’ expertise development across a range of dimensions. The participants were two cohorts of 11 graduate students in a program on instructional psychology and design. Data, including observations, interviews, design documents, metacognitive essays and peer feedback, were collected for triangulation and in-depth analysis. The results showed that the two cohorts exhibited similar patterns in their ID expertise development. These development processes were influenced by both self-processes and social influences. Self-processes are determined by the perceptions, motivation and prior knowledge that students bring into the learning environment. Social influences are characterised by a learning community that encourages peer interactions and feedback and is supported by expert modelling and scaffolding.

Keywords

Expert modelling Expertise development Instructional design Learning community Motivation Peer feedback Perceptions Reflection Scaffolding Self-processes 

References

  1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2000). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  8. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complimentary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  15. Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. C. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43–62.Google Scholar
  16. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Flavell, J. H. (1991). Understanding memory access. In R. Hoffman & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 281–299). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information-processing theory: The design problem space. AI Magazine, 10, 19–36.Google Scholar
  19. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 395–429.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, B. A., DeBacker, T. K., Ravindran, B., & Krows, A. J. (1999). Goals, values, beliefs as predictors of achievement and effort in high school mathematics classes. Sex Roles, 40(5/6), 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardré, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2005). Toward a model of development for instructional design expertise. Educational Technology, 45(1), 53–57.Google Scholar
  22. Hardré, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2006). A qualitative study of the development of instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90.Google Scholar
  23. Hatano, G. (1990). The nature of everyday science: A brief introduction. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 245–250.Google Scholar
  24. Julian, M. F., Kinzie, M. B., & Larsen, V. A. (2000). Compelling case experiences: Performance, practice and application for emerging instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 164–201.Google Scholar
  25. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.Google Scholar
  27. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 245–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Compentence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the means and ends. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 349–367). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, M. C., & Pourchot, T. (1998). What does educational psychology know about adult learning and development? In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 3–11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Stepich, D., Ertmer, P., & Lane, M. (2001). Problem-solving in a case-based course: Strategies for facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Cost of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 347–354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert-expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wineburg, S. S., & Fournier, J. E. (1994). Contextualized thinking in history. In M. Carretero & J. D. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 285–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Winner, E. (1996). The rage to master: The decisive role of talent in the visual arts. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 271–301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations