Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:52:30.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of the Teaching Behaviours of Academics and Facilitating Student Learning: A Qualitative Study of Tertiary Students’ Instructional Metacognitive Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

T V Bowles
T V Bowles*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University
*
Centre for Social, Emotional, Cognitive, and Behavioural Development, Australian Catholic University, Locked Bag 4115, Ftizroy MDC, Fitzroy VIC 3065
Get access

Abstract

Two key assumptions fundamental to theories and research that explain the learning of tertiary students is that students readily know and can articulate which behaviours of academics positively influence their learning. In this study open-ended questions were used to elicit responses from 200 students, one group enrolled in psychology as a major, and another group studying psychology units as an elective. Results showed that there was no difference in the perceptions of students as a function of their major in psychology. Clear and professional delivery of material was most frequently identified as best practice for academics. Students knew this because it was most frequently associated with student understanding and performance. The teaching approach of academics and the aids to learning used by academics were nominated most frequently as staff activities that enhanced student learning. Students knew this was effective because it enhanced understanding and performance and because of the provision of information from staff. It was suggested that academics could be more effective and students would learn more effectively if lectures and tutorials were delivered more carefully and facilities and aids were improved. For each question, between 12% to 40% of respondents did not know how to appropriately respond. The discussion focused on the meaning of the no responses, the identified factors of instructional metacognitive knowledge, the areas that academics might improve, and the necessity for instructional metacognitive knowledge to accompany information transferred in lectures and tutorials.

Keywords

tertiary students’ instructional metacognitive knowledge
Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 82 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainley, M. (1994). Engagement with learning: Adolescent perceptions of self and school. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 11, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. (2006). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking patterns of student interaction with achievement activities. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, L., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2007). “What happens in my university classes that helps me to learn?” Teacher education students’ instructional metacognitive knowledge. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biggs, J.B., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billings-Gagliardi, S., Barrett, S.V., & Mazor, K.M., (2004). Interpreting course evaluation results: insights from thinkaloud interviews with medical students. Medical Education, 38, 1061–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, 713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, T. (2004). Adult approaches to learning and associated talents. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 1–12.Google Scholar
Brownlee, J., Boulton-Lewis, G., & Purdie, N., (2002). Core beliefs about knowledge and peripheral beliefs about learning: Developing an holistic conceptualisation of epistemological beliefs. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2, 1–16.Google Scholar
Cao, L., & Nietfeld, J.L. (2007). College students’ metacognitive awareness of difficulties in learning the class content does not automatically lead to adjustment of study strategies. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7, 31–46.Google Scholar
Coffman, W.E. (1954). Determining students’ concepts of effective teaching from their ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, L. (2004). Conscious knowledge of learning: Accessing learning strategies in a final year high school biology class. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1427–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J.W. & Piano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed method research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.Google Scholar
Devlin, M. (2002). Taking responsibility for learning isn’t every thing: A case for developing tertiary students’ conception of learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1998). Students’ views on efficiency of instruction: An exploratory survey of the instructional metacognitive knowledge of university freshmen. Higher Education, 36, 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1999). Metacognitive instructional knowledge: Cognitive mediation and instructional design. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 13, 145–169.Google Scholar
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher Education, 19, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grussing, P.G., Valuck, R.J. & Williams, R.G. (1994). Development and validation of behaviorally-anchored rating scales for student evaluation of pharmacy instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 58, 25–37.Google Scholar
Heinrich, H.A. (2005). Who perceives the collective past and how? Are refusals on open-ended questions substantial answers? Quality and Quantity, 39, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jick, T. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In VanMaanen, J. (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 135–148). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jones, J. (1981). Students’ models of university teaching. Higher Education, 10, 529–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ka-Ming, Y., & Kit-Tai, H. (2006). Constructivist teaching and teacher-centred teaching: a comparison of students’ learning in a university course. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 43, 279–290.Google Scholar
Keats, D. (1993). Skilled interviewing (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Australia Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Keaveny, T.J. & McGann, F. (1978). Behavioral dimensions associated with students’ global ratings of college professors. Research in Higher Education, 9, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konings, K.D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 645–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohman, D.F. (1986). Predicting mathemathantic effects in the teaching of higher order skills. Educational Psychology, 19, 277–300.Google Scholar
Lonergan, Bernard. (1997). Insight: A Study of Human Understanding: Volume 3 of the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1957).Google Scholar
Lowyck, J. & Elen, J. (1994). Students’ instructional metacognition in learning environments (SIMILE). Leuven, Belgium: Catholic University of Leuven, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2000). Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1, Retrieved February 20,2007, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-OOmayring-e.htm.Google Scholar
Miles, M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G., (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology. 88, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil participation and pupil perspective: ’Carving a new order of experience’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H.R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769–802). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Response to “Paradigms and presuppositions: The difference between qualitative and quantitative research.” Scholarly Iinquiry for Nursing Practice, 14, 157–163.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S.M., Hersen, M., & Heiser, N. (2003). The interviewing process. In Hersen, M. & Turner, S.M. (Eds.), Diagnostic interviewing (3rd ed.). (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic /Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Tschannen-Morana, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winne, P.H., & Marx, R.W. (1977). Reconceptualising research on teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 668–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winne, P.H., & Marx, R.W. (1980). Matching students’ cognitive responses to teaching skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winne, P.H., & Marx, R.W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes for classroom learning. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Into Practice, 41, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar