Abstract
The present studies were conducted to investigate students’ conceptions of distinct constructivist assumptions. To that end, a questionnaire was developed containing statements about four constructivist assumptions: The importance of knowledge construction, cooperative learning, self-regulation, and the use of authentic problems together with self-perceived inability to learn and motivation to learn. The studies demonstrate that the questionnaire was able to unearth students’ conceptions of the distinctiveness of constructivist assumptions. Students were able to identify the six factors underlying the questionnaire, as indicated by the fit of the hypothesized model. The test for measurement invariance showed that factor loadings were equivalent across groups and that the questionnaire’s underlying factor structure gave evidence of cross-validation. Testing alternative models with one and three latent factors resulted in poor model fits, supporting the questionnaire’s latent factor structure. The questionnaire developed appeared an adequate instrument to investigate students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions of learning and students acknowledge the importance of these assumptions as distinct influences on their learning process.
Résumé
Les études en question ont été menées afin d’examiner les conceptions des étudiants quant aux principes constructivistes. Le questionnaire, mis au point a cette fin, contient quatre piliers de conceptions constructivistes: l’importance de la construction cognitive, l’apprentissage cooper-off, l’autorégulation, et l’emploi de problèmes authentiques conjointement avec l’incertitude de l’apprentissage et la motivation d’étudier. Ces études démontrent que le questionnaire était capable de mettre en évidence les conceptions que se faisaient les étudiants a propos du caractère distinctif des principes constructifs. Les étudiants étaient capables d’identifier les six facteurs sous-jacents au questionnaire, comme la forme du modèle d’hypothèses l’indique. Le test visant à mesurer la constance a révélé que les analyses factorielles (le poids des facteurs) étaient équivalentes entre les groupes et que la structure des facteurs implicite du questionnaire a mis en évidence la validation croisée. Le modèle a six facteurs a été mis a l’épreuve vis-à-vis des modèles d’un facteur versus trois facteurs. Les analyses factorielles confirment que le modèle a six facteurs révèle la solution la plus optimale et que les autres modèles révèlent des solutions sub-optimales.
Apparentement, le question naire permet de développer un instrument utile pour étudier la conception qu’ont les étudiants a propos des principes constructivistes de l’apprentissage. De même, les étudiants comprennent l’importance de ces suppositions en les considérants comme des influences directes de leur processus d’apprentissage.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cernak & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–403). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2003).Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.
Bandalos, D.L., & Finney, S.J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G.A. Marcoulides & R.E. Schumacker (Eds.),New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bakx, A.W.E.A., Vermetten, Y.J.M., & Van der Sanden, J.M.M. (2003). Self-perceived competence, learning conceptions and preferred learning situations in the domain of communication.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 223–245.
Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D.J., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 228–246.
Block, S.D. (1996). Using problem-based learning to enhance the psychosocial competence of medical students.American Psychiatrist, 20, 65–75.
Blumenfeld, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272–281.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today.International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.
Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery.Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
Byrne, B.M. (2001).Structural equation modeling with Amos. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cantwell, R.H., & Moore, P.J. (1996). The development of measures of individual differences in self-regulatory control and their relationship to academic performance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 500–517.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (1999). Testing for factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method.Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.
Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: The perspectives of students entering university.Learning and Instruction, 4, 331–345.
Dewey, J. (1960).The quest for certainty, New York: Minton.
Duke, M., Forbes, H., Hunter, S., & Prosser, M. (1998). Problem-based learning: conceptions and approaches of under-graduate students of nursing.Advances in Health Sciences Education, 3, 59–70.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indices.Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56–83.
Forbes, H., Duke, M., & Prosser, M. (2001). Students’ perceptions of learning outcomes from group-based, problem-based teaching and learning activities.Advances in Health Sciences Education, 6, 205–217.
Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.),Structural equation modeling: Present and future — A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (2002).Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new altermatives.Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory and learing.American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
Klatter, E.B., Lodewijks, H.G.L.C., & Aarnoutse, C.A.J. (2001). Learning conceptions of young students in the final year of primary education.Learning and Instruction, 11, 485–516.
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Marsh, H.W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach.Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5–34.
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K., Roche, L., Craven, R., Balla, J., & McInemey, V. (1994). Problems in the application of structural equation modeling: Comment on Randhawa, Beamer and Lundberg (1993).Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 457–462.
Marshall, H.H. (Ed.). (1992).Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mayer, R.E., & Wittrock, M. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.
McLean, M. (2001). Can we relate conceptions of learning to student academic achievement?.Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 399–413.
Parikh, A., McReelis, K., & Hodges, B. (2001). Student feedback in problem-based learning: A survey of 103 final year students across five Ontario medical schools.Medical Education, 35, 632–636.
Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.Educational Researcher, 24, 5–12.
Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.),Language and learning (pp. 23–34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pintrich, P.R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning.International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching context.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (1996).Motivation in education. Theory, research, and applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Meril — Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Ryan, A. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school.Educational Psychologist, 35, 101–111.
Säljö, R. (1979).Learning in the learner’s perspective: I. Some common-sense conceptions. Reports from the Department of Education, University of Göteborg.
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Schunk, D.H. (1996).Learning theories. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merill — Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1994).Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
Steffe, L.P., & Gale, J. (1995).Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.Psychometrica, 38, 1–10.
Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54 73–83.
Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992).Leers tijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs — naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken [Learning styles and regulation of learning in higher education — towards process-oriented instruction in autonomous thinking]. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.),Constructivism in education (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Voss, J.F., & Post, T.A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962).Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research — on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
Wentzel, K. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76–97.
White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students.Cognition and Instruction, 16 (1), 3–18.
Woolfolk, A.E. (2004).Educational Psychology (9th ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.Jouranl of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Loyens, S.M.M., Rikers, R.M.J.P. & Schmidt, H.G. Students’ conceptions of distinct constructivist assumptions. Eur J Psychol Educ 22, 179–199 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173521
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173521