Process Theories: Form or Substance? A Discussion of the Papers by Butterfield, Das and Jarman

  • John B. Biggs
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 14)


The most general common assumption underlying the papers by Butterfield, Das and Jarman—and many others presented at this Conference—implies a sharp distinction between process and performance. More specifically, competent performance is seen as the result of an interaction between task demands and various cognitive options the individual may or may not have at his disposal. Das presented one view of what those options might be; Jarman demonstrated the effect that stimulus demands have upon the range of options, differentially for high and low ability groups; and Butterfield outlined a research strategy that promises to integrate task demands and cognitive availability, not only with respect to the concerns of the other two speakers, but over a very broad front indeed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Biggs, J. B. Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 48, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, J.H. (Ed.) Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. and Austin, G. A. A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.Google Scholar
  4. Case, R. The underlying mechanism of intellectual development. In J. Biggs and J. R. Kirby (Eds.) Instructional Processes and Individual Differences in Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Das, J. P., Cummins, J., Kirby, J. R., and Jarman, R. F. Simultaneous and successive processes, language and mental abilities. Canadian Psychological Review, 1979, 20, 1–11.Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson, M Children’s Minds. T London: Macmillan, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Jensen, A. R. Genetics and Education. London: Methuen, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. Kirby, J. R. and Das, J. P. Reading achievement, IQ and simultaneous-successive processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krywaniuk, L. W. and Das, J. P. Cognitive strategies in native children: analysis and intervention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1976, 22, 271–280.Google Scholar
  10. Pascual-Leone, J. A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 1970, 63, 301–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pask, G. and Scott, B.C.E. Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1972, 4, 217–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Siegel, L. and Brainerd, C. (Eds.) Alternatives to Piaget. New York: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. Tyler, L. E. Individuality. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Zeaman, D, and House, B. J. The role of attention in retardate discrimination. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.) Handbook of Mental Deficiency. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963.Google Scholar

Section 1: Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Biggs, J., and Kirby, J. R. Processing styles, study strategies and school performance. Project funded by the Australian Research Grants Committee, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • John B. Biggs
    • 1
  1. 1.Newcastle UniversityShortlandAustralia

Personalised recommendations