Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Carlsson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (56), 815–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Eriksson, L., Johansson, E., Kettaneh-Wold, N., & Wold, S. (2001). Multi- and megavariate data analysis: Principles and applications. Umeå: Umetrics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finster, D. C. (1989). Developmental instruction part 1: Perrys model of intellectual development. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(8), 659–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joliffe, I. T. (1986). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lindgren, J., & Karlsson, M. (2001). WinSolGasWater (WinSGW) (Version 2.2.4). Umeå: Unit for Inorganic Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Umeå University, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umetrics. (2004). SIMCA-P+ (Version 10.5) [Multivariate data analysis software]. Umeå: Umetrics.

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Mikael Winberg.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1

The Flow Experiences Questionnaire (FEQ ) . The items that were excluded due to low R2 and Q2 are italicized.

Part 1

The following questions ask about your feelings while performing the simulation. Please describe the simulation by placing check marks on the scales given below.

Enjoyment

1.

Interesting

□□□□□

Not interesting

2.

Fun

□□□□□

Not fun

3.

Exciting

□□□□□

Not exciting

4.

Enjoyable

□□□□□

Not enjoyable

Concentration

5.

Deeply engrossed in the activity

□□□□□

Not Deeply engrossed in the activity

6.

Intensely absorbed by the activity

□□□□□

Not Intensely absorbed by the activity

7.

Attention was focused on the activity

□□□□□

Attention was not focused on the activity

8.

Concentrated fully on the acitvity

□□□□□

Did not concentrate fully on the activity

Control

9.

I clearly knew what to do

□□□□□

I felt confused about what to do

10.

I felt calm

□□□□□

I felt agitated

11.

I felt in control

□□□□□

I did not feel in control

Exploration

12.

I tried the additional functions that were than those that were available in the the program

□□□□□

I did not try any other functions than those that were described in the instructions

13.

I tried new ways to do things

□□□□□

I did not try new ways to do things

14.

I did many experiments of my own

□□□□□

I did not do any Experiments of my own

Challenge

15.

In general, how challenging did you find the activity?

Very much

□□□□□

Low

Part Two 2

Indicate how well the statements below describe your own experiences of the simulation activity. The closer to the statement you mark, the more you agree with it.

16.

I had no problems to understand what to do

□□□□□

17.

The exercises stimulated to deep discussions about chemistry

□□□□□

18.

The simulation was meaningful

□□□□□

19.

I’d rather do conventional problem solving tasks than undertake this simulation.

□□□□□

20.

I am unsure of what was the meaning of the simulation.

□□□□□

21.

It is better to read the textbook than to do the simulation

□□□□□

22.

The tasks made me engage in the simulation exercise

□□□□□

23.

The discussions made me engage in the simulation exercise

□□□□□

24.

I was not sure of what to do.

□□□□□

25.

I was not sure whether my reasoning was correct or not

□□□□□

26.

I was very engaged in trying to understand the underlying chemistry in the simulation

□□□□□

27.

The chemistry-discussions in my group were very interesting

□□□□□

28.

I got several own questions during the simulation

□□□□□

29.

It was very useful to work in a team during this exercise

□□□□□

30.

The exercises made me intrested in learning chemistry

□□□□□

31.

I became stressed when I did not understand

□□□□□

32.

Several own questions were raised during the simulation

□□□□□

33.

I think that conventional tasks contribute more to the learning than this exercise

□□□□□

34.

The computer program was easy to use

□□□□□

35.

The representations were easy to understand

□□□□□

36.

The exercises were instructive

□□□□□

37.

The simulation was a good way to test your knowledge

□□□□□

38.

The simulation helped me to repair deficiencies in my knowledge

□□□□□

39.

The simulation helped me find answers to my own questions

□□□□□

40.

I would probably have learned more if I had worked alone with the simulation

□□□□□

41.

The simulation gave new knowledge in the acid-base and buffers domain

□□□□□

42.

I discovered deficiencies in my knowledge in the acid-base and buffers domain

□□□□□

43.

I think I learn better by working in a team and in this manner

□□□□□

44.

I felt that the chemistry that was treated in the simulation has become more comprehensible

□□□□□

45.

I think I was proficient in this area of knowledge before the simulation

□□□□□

46.

I think I am more proficient now than before the simulation

□□□□□

47.

I felt embarrassed by showing that I did not understand

□□□□□

48.

I hesitated to make questions to my team members

□□□□□

49.

I hesitated to make questions to the assistant teacher

□□□□□

50.

The most important for me was to be able to solve the tasks

□□□□□

51.

It was more important to learn by discussions than solving the tasks

□□□□□

Appendix 2

Speed-pretest items

Question 1

Use the diagram to determine the pH in 0.1 M acetic acid (pKa = 4.76).

figure a

Question 2

The CO2 (g) in air is in equilibrium with a solution of CO2 in water. The formulas below show the reactions that are involved.

$$ {\text{CO}}_{2} (g) \rightleftharpoons {\text{ CO}}_{2} ({\text{aq}}){\text{ }}\lg {\text{K}} = - 1.47 $$
$$ {\text{CO}}_{2} ({\text{aq}}) + {\text{H}}_{{\text{2}}} {\text{O}} \rightleftharpoons {\text{ HCO}}_{{\text{3}}} + {\text{H}}^{ + } {\text{ pKa}} = 6,35{\text{ }}{\left( {\lg {\text{K}}_{{\text{a}}} = - 6.35} \right)} $$
$$ {\text{HCO}}_{{\text{3}}} ^{ - } \rightleftharpoons {\text{CO}_3^{2-}} + {\text{ }}\text{H} ^{ + } {\text{ pKa}} = 10,33{\text{ }}{\left( {\lg {\text{K}}_{{\text{a}}} = - 10.33} \right)} $$

From these formulas, the diagram below can be constructed. It describes how the components of the carbonate system vary as a function of the pH when the CO2 in the air is in equilibrium with pure water at an air pressure of 1 bar and 350 ppm CO2 (g). What is the pH in this solution?

figure b

Question 3

  1. a.

    Calculate the pH in a 0.20 M solution of disodium malonate.(pKa1 = 2.85; pKa2 = 5.70)

  2. b.

    What would the pH be if the solution above also contained 0.05 M sodium hydroxide?

  3. C.

    Calculate the resulting pH when 17.5 cm3 of 1.00 M HCl is added to 100 cm3 of solution “a”

Question 4

Assume that you have a 0.01 M solution of a weak acid (HA).

Mark the alternative/s below that accurately describes features of this solution.

  1. a.

    pH = 1,0

  2. b.

    [H+]>>[A]

  3. c.

    [HA] = 0 M

  4. d.

    [HA] + [A] = 0.01 M

  5. e.

    [H+] + [A] = 0.01 M

  6. f.

    [H+] + [HA] = 0.01 M

Question 5

Which of the following molecules is the strongest base?

  1. a.

    CH3CH2O

  2. b.

    CH3COO

  3. c.

    CH2ClCOO

Appendix 3

A selection of items from the Attitude Questionnaire with high loadings on the attitude component

3.

I think that lecturers should avoid including course material that is difficult for the students.

□□□□□

I think that lecturers should include difficult course material to provide a challenge for the students.

8.

It is a waste of time to work with problems that do not have unambiguous answers.

□□□□□

It is time well used to work with problems that do not have unambiguous answers.

9.

I prefer to work with problems that I have not been shown how to solve beforehand.

□□□□□

I prefer that the teacher shows me how to solve the problems before I start working.

19.

I believe that I learn more from a laboratory exercise if I plan and perform the experiment myself.

□□□□□

I believe that I learn more from a laboratory exercise if there are detailed instructions on how to plan and perform the experiment.

20.

When I perform an experiment, I want the teacher to help me get it right from the beginning.

□□□□□

When I perform an experiment, I want to try myself, without comments from the teacher.

32.

I appreciate when someone really knowledgeable explains a problem for me.

□□□□□

I appreciate to hear other people’s suggestions as possible explanations of a problem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Winberg, T.M., Hedman, L. Student attitudes toward learning, level of pre-knowledge and instruction type in a computer-simulation: effects on flow experiences and perceived learning outcomes. Instr Sci 36, 269–287 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9030-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9030-9

Keywords

Navigation