Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 269–287 | Cite as

Student attitudes toward learning, level of pre-knowledge and instruction type in a computer-simulation: effects on flow experiences and perceived learning outcomes

  • T. Mikael WinbergEmail author
  • Leif Hedman
Article

Abstract

Attitudes toward learning (ATL) have been shown to influence students’ learning outcomes. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the ways in which the interaction between ATL, the learning situation, and the level of students’ prior knowledge influence affective reactions and conceptual change. In this study, a simulation of acid-base titrations was examined to assess the impact of instruction format, level of prior knowledge and students’ ATL on university-level students, with respect to flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and perceived conceptual change. Results show that the use of guiding instructions was correlated with a perceived conceptual change and high levels of “Challenge,” “Enjoyment,” and “Concentration,” but low sense of control during the exercise. Students who used the open instructions scored highly on the “Control flow” component, but their perceived learning score was lower than that for the students who used the guiding instructions. In neither case did students’ ATL or their pre-test results contribute strongly to students’ flow experiences or their perceived learning in the two different learning situations.

Keywords

Epistemological beliefs Attitudes toward learning Flow Previous knowledge Instruction format Simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financed by the Swedish publishing house ‘Natur och kultur’ and grant No. 220-155600 from the EU Goal 1, North of Sweden. Special thanks to Professor Michael Sjöström, unit for Chemometrics in the department of Chemistry, Umeå University, for help with the multivariate analyses.

References

  1. Berg, C. A. R. (2005). Factors related to attitude change toward learning chemistry among university students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J. P. Campbell, & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (56), 815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
  11. Eriksson, L., Johansson, E., Kettaneh-Wold, N., & Wold, S. (2001). Multi- and megavariate data analysis: Principles and applications. Umeå: Umetrics.Google Scholar
  12. Finster, D. C. (1989). Developmental instruction part 1: Perrys model of intellectual development. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(8), 659–661.Google Scholar
  13. Finster, D. C. (1991). Developmental instruction part 2: Application of the Perry model to general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(9), 752–756.Google Scholar
  14. Ghani, J. A., & Despande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human-computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedman, L., & Sharafi, P. (2004). Early use of Internet-based educational resources: Effects on students’ engagement modes and flow experience. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderleiter, J., & Pringle, D. L. (1999). Effects of context-based laboratory experiments on attitudes of analytical chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.Google Scholar
  18. Hynd, C., Holschuh, J., & Nist, S. (2000). Learning complex scientific information: Motivation theory and its relation to student perceptions. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joliffe, I. T. (1986). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 235–380.Google Scholar
  21. Lindgren, J., & Karlsson, M. (2001). WinSolGasWater (WinSGW) (Version 2.2.4). Umeå: Unit for Inorganic Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Umeå University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. Luckin, R. (1999). Assisting child-computer collaboration in the zone of proximal development [The Vygotskian inspired System (VIS)]. In J. Bliss, R. Säljö, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites. Social and technological resources for learning. Oxford: Pergamon, Earli.Google Scholar
  23. Mackenzie, A. M., Johnstone, A. H., & Brown, R. I. F. (2003). Learning from problem based learning. University Chemistry Education, 7(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  24. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Cognitive focus during learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 56–80). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, W. S. (1994). Student and faculty epistemology in the college classroom: The Perry schema of intellectual and ethical development. In K. W. Prichard, & R. M. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  26. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  28. Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Student motivation in the classroom. In K. W. S. M. R. Prichard (Eds.), Psychological foundations (pp. 22–42). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  29. Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 347–358.Google Scholar
  30. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The development of the What-If test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22(4), 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swaak, J., Van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8(3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Umetrics. (2004). SIMCA-P+ (Version 10.5) [Multivariate data analysis software]. Umeå: Umetrics.Google Scholar
  34. Winberg, T. M., & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (in press).Google Scholar
  35. Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of research in science teaching, 35(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemistry Education Research, Department of Mathemathics, Technology and Natural SciencesUmeå UniversityUmeaSweden
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UmeåUmeaSweden

Personalised recommendations