On qualitative differences in learning: i—outcome and process*
01 Feb 1976-British Journal of Educational Psychology (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)-Vol. 46, Iss: 1, pp 4-11
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe an attempt to identify different levels of processing of information among groups of Swedish university students who were asked to read substantial passages of prose and also about how they set about reading the passages.
Abstract: Summary. This paper describes an attempt to identify different levels of processing of information among groups of Swedish university students who were asked to read substantial passages of prose. Students were asked questions about the meaning of the passages and also about how they set about reading the passages. This approach allows processes and strategies of learning to be examined, as well as the outcomes in terms of what is understood and remembered. The starting point of this research was that learning has to be described in terms of its content. From this point differences in what is learned, rather than differences in how much is learned, are described. It was found that in each study a number of categories (levels of outcome) containing basically different conceptions of the content of the learning task could be identified. The corresponding differences in level of processing are described in terms of whether the learner is engaged in surface-level or deep-level processing.
Citations
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a framework for the generation of ILOs for a course by identifying the kind of knowledge to be learned (declarative or functioning) and the level of understanding or performance to be achieved.
Abstract: generalize create, solve unseen problems, extrapolate to unknown domains 22831.indb 124 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 125 • the verb at the appropriate level of understanding or of performance intended; • the topic content the verb is meant to address, the object of the verb in other words; • the context of the content discipline in which the verb is to be deployed. The ILOs for the course The Nature of Teaching and Learning illustrate these points: 1 Explain why a particular course topic is important to teaching. 2 Apply a course topic to your own teaching. 3 Refl ect on your teaching in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course. 4 Evaluate a situation that has gone wrong and apply a solution. The fi rst refers to declarative knowledge: the students have to reach a level of understanding that requires them to explain something, not just describe or list it: the latter only display multistructural levels of understanding, but explaining requires students to be able to relate the topic to the context of teaching and is at a relational level of understanding. The second is a functioning knowledge example also at the relational level as it requires a level of understanding that enables the student to apply the topic to teaching. The other two are also about functioning knowledge and should be at the relational to extended abstract level of understanding, depending on the originality of the student’s response. The content in (3) is the student’s own working theory and the context the student’s own teaching, and in (4), the content is the theory used in evaluating and the context the problematic situation in teaching. As a note on the number of ILOs per course, we stated earlier that there should be no more fi ve or six ILOs for any course, even though there may be up to ten topics that need addressing. The answer is to write integrating ILOs that address several topics, or, as in ILOs (1) and (2) above, the ILO allows the student to select just one topic for demonstrating ability to achieve the ILO. Another thing to watch out for are redundant ILOs, such as ‘Describe and explain . . .’. ‘Describe’ is redundant because if the student can explain the topic, he or she can certainly describe it. The other matter one should keep in mind at this stage is that desirable but unintended outcomes, or outcomes unforeseen by the teacher, may emerge. This is the nature of extended abstract responses by the student, and they will be accounted for in the normal assessment, but others may simply be things that the student sees as important and relevant learning. This matter becomes a practical issue during assessment, and we address it in Chapter 10. You should now be in a position to design and write your own ILOs for a course you are teaching (Task 7.1). 22831.indb 125 6/15/11 2:11 PM 126 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning Task 7.1 Writing course ILOs Take a course that you are teaching. Consider the course aim and write the course ILOs by identifying: a the kind of knowledge to be learned (declarative or functioning). b the content or topic to be learned. c the level of understanding or performance to be achieved. d any particular context in which the outcome verb is to be enacted. The following grid may be a useful framework to help you think. Kind of knowledge Level of Content topic Context Declar/function understanding (outcome verb) ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Now go across the rows and write out the course ILOs by stating the intended level of understanding or performance (outcome verb), topic and the context in which the verb is to be enacted. There is no need to include the kind of knowledge in the ILO as that is defi ned by the verb(s) you use. To recap an example of a course ILO from our course The Nature of Teaching and Learning : Students should be able to: Refl ect (level of understanding and performance) on your teaching (context) in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course (content). Now write your course ILOs. Students should be able to: ILO1: _______________________________________________________ ILO2: _______________________________________________________ ILO3: _______________________________________________________ 22831.indb 126 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 127 Aligning ILOs at three levels: curriculum mapping Now that we have written the course ILOs, we have the task of checking to see that the three levels of intended outcomes, graduate, programme and course, are aligned. We can achieve this by curriculum mapping (Huet et al. 2009), which is a systematic means of ensuring alignment between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes, and course ILOs and programme ILOs. Graduate outcomes and programme ILOs Table 7.4 shows a simply way of checking the alignment between graduate outcomes and programme ILOs. The table is a device to ensure that the match between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes has at least been considered. Programme ILOs should not be forced to match graduate outcomes that don’t belong in the programme. Because of the different natures of different disciplines or professions, different programmes may have different emphases in addressing the graduate outcomes. It is not necessary that every programme should address all graduate outcomes to the same extent because some may not be relevant to the programme. Programme ILOs are simply the reasons that the programme is being taught, which is a matter of professional and academic judgment. However, university policy will prevail on this. Task 7.2 parallels Table 7.4: it asks you to align programme ILOs with the graduate outcomes of your university, if it has any. If the programme ILOs ILO4: _______________________________________________________ ILO5:_______________________________________________________ ILO6:_______________________________________________________ Review the ILOs to see whether: a the kind of knowledge, content and level of understanding or performance are relevant to achieve the course aim. b they cover all the main reasons for teaching the course. c they are clearly written, especially in identifying the level of understanding or performance to be achieved by the students, and the context (if appropriate). d the number is manageable for designing aligned teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks. How does this new set of course ILOs compare to your existing course ‘objectives’? Does the existing set need to be rewritten? 22831.indb 127 6/15/11 2:11 PM 128 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning haven’t yet been articulated, discuss them with the programme coordinator and derive a set, then match them with the graduate outcomes. This should give you a clearer idea of how graduate outcomes can suitably be addressed in your teaching. How does your attempt gel with your university’s policy on this? Gelade and Fursenko (2007) also describe a tool for systematically mapping courses and programmes for graduate outcomes. Task 7.2 Aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes 1 Take a programme in which you are teaching and either list the programme ILOs if they are already articulated or, if they are not, sit down with the programme coordinator or programme committee chairperson and fi rst write the aims of the programme and a list of programme ILOs that meet those aims. 2 What are the graduate outcomes of your university? List them in the left-hand column in the grid below. 3 In the right-hand column list the programme ILOs that would address the graduate outcomes. Are all graduate outcomes addressed somewhere? Which are not? Does it matter?’ Graduate outcomes Programme ILO 1 2 etc. Table 7.4 An example of aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes Graduate outcomes Programme ILO Competent in professional Analyse and apply principles to real-life practice accounting situations Communicate effectively Communicate as a professional with clients and colleagues in real-life accounting situations Teamwork Operate effectively and ethically as a team member in real-life accounting situations Ethical professional As above 22831.indb 128 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 129 Programme ILOs and course ILOs The next level of alignment is between the programme and the course ILOs. As each programme is served by its constituent courses, it is important that, when aligning course ILOs to the programme ILOs, the course ILOs in total address all aspects of the programme ILOs. Often a programme ILO will be addressed by several courses, from different and increasingly more complex angles. You may attempt this in Task 7.3. Task 7.3 Aligning course ILOs with programme ILOs For individual teachers 1 List the programme ILOs of the programme. 2 List the course ILOs of the courses that you are teaching in a given programme. 3 Consider what programme ILO(s) each of the course ILOs addresses in the following table. Programme ILOs Course 1 ILOs Course 2 ILOs Course 3 ILOs
6,414 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a distinction is made between two perspectives: from the first-order perspective, describing various aspects of the world and from the second-order viewpoint, describing people's experience of various aspects in the world.
Abstract: Arguments are put forward in this paper in favour of research which has as its aim the finding and systematizing of forms of thought in terms of which people interpret significant aspects of reality. The kind of research argued for is complementary to other kinds of research; it aims at description, analysis and understanding of experiences. The relatively distinct field of inquiry indicated by such an orientation is labelled phenomenography. A fundamental distinction is made between two perspectives. From the first-order perspective we aim at describing various aspects of the world and from the second-order perspective (for which a case is made in this paper) we aim at describing people's experience of various aspects of the world. Research in a variety of disciplines, sub-disciplines and “schools of thought” has provided us with experiential descriptions, that is, content-oriented and interpretative descriptions of the qualitatively different ways in which people perceive and understand their reality. It has, however, seldom been recognized that these various research efforts share a common perspective in their view of phenomena and a unifying scientific identity has in consequence not been attained. The focussing on the apprehended (experienced, conceptualized,) content as a point of departure for carrying out research and as a basis for integrating the findings is seen as the most distinctive feature of the domain indicated. Conceptions and ways of understanding are not seen as individual qualities. Conceptions of reality are considered rather as categories of description to be used in facilitating the grasp of concrete cases of human functioning. Since the same categories of description appear in different situations, the set of categories is thus stable and generalizable between the situations even if individuals move from one category to another on different occasions. The totality of such categories of description denotes a kind of collective intellect, an evolutionary tool in continual development.
3,097 citations
Cites background from "On qualitative differences in learn..."
...for instance, Marton and Saljo, 1976, Saljo, 1981 (b); for an overview see Gibbs, Morgan and Taylor, 1980)....
[...]
TL;DR: Constructive alignment as discussed by the authors is a marriage of the two thrusts, constructivism being used as a framework to guide decision-making at all stages in instructional design: in deriving curriculum objectives in terms of performances that represent a suitably high cognitive level, in deciding teaching/learning activities judged to elicit those performances, and to assess and summatively report student performance.
Abstract: Two lines of thinking are becoming increasingly important in higher educational practice. The first derives from constructivist learning theory, and the second from the instructional design literature. Constructivism comprises a family of theories but all have in common the centrality of the learner's activities in creating meaning. These and related ideas have important implications for teaching and assessment. Instructional designers for their part have emphasised alignment between the objectives of a course or unit and the targets for assessing student performance. “Constructive alignment” represents a marriage of the two thrusts, constructivism being used as a framework to guide decision-making at all stages in instructional design: in deriving curriculum objectives in terms of performances that represent a suitably high cognitive level, in deciding teaching/learning activities judged to elicit those performances, and to assess and summatively report student performance. The “performances of understanding” nominated in the objectives are thus used to systematically align the teaching methods and the assessment. The process is illustrated with reference to a professional development unit in educational psychology for teachers, but the model may be generalized to most units or programs in higher education.
2,786 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a conceptual framework for assessing student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom is presented, which is based on a self-regulatory perspective on student motivation in contrast to a student approaches to learning.
Abstract: A conceptual framework for assessing student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom is presented. The framework is based on a self-regulatory (SRL) perspective on student motivation and learning in contrast to a student approaches to learning (SAL) perspective. The differences between SRL and SAL approaches are discussed, as are the implications of the SRL conceptual framework for developing instruments to assess college student motivation and learning. The conceptual framework may be useful in guiding future research on college student motivation and learning.
2,248 citations
Cites background from "On qualitative differences in learn..."
...385 1040-726X/04/1200-0385/0 C© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. and studying in real college and university contexts (Biggs, 1993; Dyne et al., 1994; Entwistle and Waterston, 1988; Marton and Saljo, 1976)....
[...]
...and studying in real college and university contexts (Biggs, 1993; Dyne et al., 1994; Entwistle and Waterston, 1988; Marton and Saljo, 1976 )....
[...]
TL;DR: This article showed that self-explanation can also be facilitative when it is explicitly promoted, in the context of learning declarative knowledge from an expository text, and that prompted students who generated o large number of self-explaining (the high explainers) learned with greater understanding than low explainers.
1,995 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Lack of interest in the text, efforts to adapt to expected test demands, and high test anxiety were all found to increase the tendency towards surface-processing and ineffective, reproductive attempts at recall, but an adaptive approach allied to strong interest and low anxiety produced a high proportion of deep-level approaches with good factual recall.
Abstract: SUMMARY. Eighty-one students were asked to read an article under different conditions of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The conditions were varied by choosing the sample so as to make the article relevant or irrelevant to contrasting subgroups, thus attempting to control the level of intrinsic motivation. The test conditions were varied to increase ego-involvement and threat to self-esteem in one situation, while providing a situation for other subgroups which was supportive and non-demanding. The qualitative differences in learning process and outcomes and the quantitative differences in recall of factual knowledge were investigated in relation to the various experimental subgroups created. Self-reports on trait and state test-anxiety, and the extent to which the students had actually experienced the types of motivation intended to be produced by experimental manipulation, were also investigated in relation to qualitative and quantitative differences in learning. Lack of interest in the text, efforts to adapt to expected test demands, and high test anxiety, were all found to increase the tendency towards surface-processing and ineffective, reproductive attempts at recall. However, an adaptive approach allied to strong interest and low anxiety produced a high proportion of deep-level approaches with good factual recall.
288 citations