European Journal of Psychology ofEducation1995, Vol. X. ,,·4.351-368e 1995, I.S.P.A.

Activating instruction: How to foster study andthinking skills in higher education

Kirsti LonkaKirsi AholaUniversity ofHelsinki, Finland

New instructional procedures have been developed and applied atthe University ofHelsinki. Department ofPsychology since 1986. Theaim ofthese procedures has been to enhance effective study skills. Theidea is to stimulate active learning in students by so called activatinginstruction. whi ch is theoretically based on a combination ofVygotsky's ideas. applied cognitive science, and process-orientedinstruction.

in many courses, students have been able to choose a preferredform of instruction among the new and the traditional methods. A six­year longitudinal study was conducted in order to see. what kinds ofchoices psychology students (N=114) made and how these choices wereconnected with their academic progress.

On the basis ofstudents ' evaluations. the new methods differed sig­nificantly from traditional methods. Students associated the develop­ment of study skills and understanding more often with activatinginstruction than with traditional courses. The number of activatingcourses taken was related 10 success in final exam and thesis writing.Those who participated in activating instruction studied slower duringthe first three years of their studying. but were more successful in thelong term.

Introduction

The main objective of this project was to develop new approaches to instruction at theuniversity level. In addition to new instructional procedures, it was intented to develop a con­ceptual framework that would help teachers to look at instruction from the student's point ofview. This is a case stud y of development in one psychology department during six years.There are some features of action research, since experience has constantly modified the pro­ject. Therefore, the intention is not to present directly generalizable results, but rather, to stim­ulate theoretical and practical ideas for developing new instructional approaches in highereducation.

This research was partially supported by Finnish Ministry of Education. This article is based on a paper presentedat EARll Conference, Aix-en-Provence, August, 1993.

352 K. LONKA & K. AHOLA

Activating instruction is a theoretical synthesis based on Vygotsky's (1962, 1978) ideas,research on applied cognitive science (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Carey, 1986; Chi,Glaser, & Farr, 1988), and models of process-oriented instruction (Applebee & Langer, 1983;Applebee, 1986; Vermunt, 1989). The framework has been constantly reconceptualized duringthe project. The main idea is to approach university teaching as fostering expertise in students,and to help develop develop functional mental models of the materials to be learned.

This paper concentrates on describing the theoretical framework and giving some sam­ples of activating psychology courses. In addition, six-year follow-up data is presented, aswell as students' evaluations of different courses, both activating and traditional.

Various background variables have an effect on the success of an instructional innova­tion. It was also looked at how some entry-level factors, such as high-school grades andentrance exam success, and some background variables would interact with the effect of acti­vating instruction.

Cognitive science, expertise, and instruction

Cognitive science offers a way of looking at instruction as fostering expertise in students(e.g., Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988). Expertise is based on domain-specific declarative knowl­edge, but in addition to single facts, expert knowledge consists of concepts, propositions andtheories (Champagne, Klopfer, & Gunstone, 1985). Development of expertise includes quali­tative changes in the knowledge base so that novices' conceptions gradually shift from thoseresembling laypeople towards those resembling experts. In this process, not only declarativeknowledge is important, but procedures and thinking skills interact with the changes in theknowledge base (Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988; Vermunt, 1989). The development of scientificthinking skills is closely related to the development of expertise (Kuhn, Amsel, & Loughlin,1988).

In all studying, the development of communication skills, such as reading and writing, isimportant. For instance, Applebee and Langer (1983) emphasize the effect of writing on think­ing. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) call "literate expertise"the academic study skills connected with expertise in various domains. They described twoapproaches to reading and writing: knowledge teIIing vs. knowledge transforming. The formerrefers to an activity that minimizes the cognitive load, whereas the latter engages the learner ineffortful and reflectic, dialectic processes. Knowledge transforming may have a cumulativeeffect on learning, because it requires expanding on knowledge and working at the upper lim­its of cognitive capacity.

Fostering conceptual change in psychology students

Research on expertise in knowledge-rich domains is closely related to research on con­ceptual change. Individuals construct certain entrenched beliefs which are based on theireveryday experience and, depending on the domain, the knowledge acquisition processrequires a revision of some of those beliefs and their replacement with a new explanatorystructure (Vosniadou, 199I). In many studies, students' implicit theories and misconceptionsabout different scientific phenomena have been made explicit, and these have been comparedto aspects of the scientific theories that the students are supposed to understand (Carey, 1986;Champagne, Klopfer, & Gunstone, 1985; Chi, 1992).

Fostering conceptual change is not a simple mission, and it requires further theoreticalanalyses as well as pedagogical experiments. The conditions and prerequisites of conceptualchange must be studied, not only in natural sciences, but much more broadly, in open-endeddomains as well. Vosniadou (1991) argues for the importance of fostering domain-specificconceptual restructuring. She emphasizes the need to a) provide instruction which is based ona thorough understanding of students' previous knowledge, b) make students aware of theirmental models and entrenched beliefs, c) create opportunities for students to enrich their

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 353

knowledge beyond phenomenal experience, and d) provide clear explanations of phenomenaso that students can understand how to revise their existing knowledge structures.

The ill-defined nature and open-endedness of psychology (e.g., Staats, 1983) poses spe­cial demands to instruction. Particularly, epistemological development must be fostered toenhance deep processing and theoretical thinking (Marton, Hounsell, & Entwistle, 1984;Perry, 1970; Ryan, 1984).

It is possible that traditional instruction does not sufficiently support students' conceptualand epistemological development, which assumably is especially important for psychologystudents (Lonka, Joram, & Bryson, 1990; 1994). On the contrary, it is possible that studentshave difficulties in developing theoretical conceptions, if instruction is strictly teacher-cen­tered and fact-oriented.

Self-regulation in learning

Self-regulation in learning may be thought as one aspect of metacognitive strategies.Vermunt and van Rijswijk (1988) define self-regulated learning as "performing educationalactivities oneself, taking over educational tasks from teachers, educating oneself' (p. 648).They point ou: that fully self-regulated learning is less common in higher education than anintermediate form between self-regulation and teacher-regulated learning.

The concept of self-regulation in learning resembles Bereiter and Scardamalia's (1989)notion of "intentional learning", portraying students as active, intentional subjects who are pri­marily responsible for their own learning. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1989) assume that teach­ers differ in terms of how they support intentional learning and let students control their ownmetacognitive processess.

Vermunt (1989) distinguishes between external and shared control in instruction, the for­mer referring to instruction where teachers take over the controlling processes, whereas thelatter gives more room for students' self-regulation. Vermunt (1989) finds shared control moretypical of activating and process-oriented instruction, which gives us tool for supporting stu­dents' self-regulation skills.

Process-oriented instruction

Applebee (1986) has conceptualized process-oriented instruction in the following way:"In process-oriented approaches, the students' goals drive the instructional activity, theteacher stands in the role of collaborator rather than evaluator, and the outcomes are betterthought as procedural rather than declarative knowledge" (pp. 107-108).

Applebee and Langer (1983) base process-oriented instruction on Vygotsky's (1962,1978) idea of social construction of cognitive activity. They use the term "instructional scaf­folding" as a way of describing essential aspects of instruction that are often missing in tradi­tional approaches, They see learning as a process of gradual internalization of proceduresavailable to the learner from the social and cultural context in which the learning takes place.New skills are learned by engaging collaboratively in tasks that would be too difficult to bedone alone but that can be completed in interaction with teacher or peers. The role of theteacher is to provide the necessary support (scaffolding) to allow the tasks to be completedand in the process to provide the learner with an understanding of the problem and of thestrategies available for its solution.

The aims of process-oriented instruction have also been presented by Vermunt (1989).He presents four general principles: I) Situated teaching of thinking skills so that knowledgeand skills are presented within a domain-specific context, 2) cognitive apprenticeship andscaffolding, including a gradual shift in the task division from teacher/peers to student, 3) pre­senting the content in a way that takes into account prior knowledge and preconceptions, and4) constructing instructional procedures that are tailored according to both students' skills andto the domain. Also, he presents a scheme of four phases of learning guided by the four princi-

354 K. LONKA& K. AHOLA

pies. In the first phase, the thinking strategies and conceptions are diagnosed, instruction isadapted to the learning styles, and constructive frictions are created. In the second phase,activities are taught that students do not master, by gradually withdrawing external support. Inthe third phase, durability and generalization are practised. The fourth phase is evaluative,aiming at diagnosing to what extent thinking skills and conceptions have been improved.

Learning by writing

Coursework essays occupy a central place in higher education in many countries. Essay­-writing is most often intended to enhance learning. However, essay-writing also serves as atool of assessment (Hounsell, 1984; McGovern & Hogshead, 1990). In many cases, the latterrole seems to dominate in such a way that it may direct student toward surface orientation. Asa result, many students concentrate on performance rather than on learning from writing.

In writing instruction, process-oriented approaches have gradually become quite popular(Applebee, 1986). Since 1970s and 1980s, research has emphasized the thinking strategiesunderlying the writing process (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987).Process-oriented writing instruction has been designed to help students think through andorganize their ideas before writing and also, to revise, reflect and rethink during their writing(Healy, 1981). According to Applebee (1986), typical learning-by-writing activities include,for instance, brainstorming, journal writing, free writing, small-group activities, and emphasison multiple drafts. He suggests that "properly implemented process approaches are moreeffective in fostering good writing and breadth of form, and also encouraging more reasonedand disciplined thinking about the topics themselves" (Applebee, 1986, p. 97).

In teaching of psychology, learning-by-writing activities have been applied in many col­leges and universities (e.g., McGovern & Hogshead, 1990; Hettich, 1990). For example,McGovern and Hogshead (1990) state the following goals: I) to assess students, 2) to promotestudents' learning, 3) to develop students' writing skills, and 4) to facilitate analytic and cre­ative thinking. They describe their own reconceptualization of writing from thinking of writ­ing as a noun towards thinking of writing as a verb. Thus, writing is not only a text producedby the student, but rather, "writing is an action, a process of thinking and learning, which isinextricably tied to our students' cognitive development in our particular courses and in theircollege careers in general" (McGovern & Hogshead, 1990, p. 5).

Boice's (1993) review of the so called writing blocks gives support to the importance ofprocess-oriented and activating instruction in academic writing. Boice (1993) concentrates onthe problem of why the tacit knowledge of writing fluency has generally been left untaught.He points out that estimates of graduate students who qualify to write dissertations but neverfinish them is as high as 50 percent. Why is not more done to help them? Boice (1993)believes that part of the problem is that university teachers prefer demonstrations of brilliancefar more than its acquisition, and this preference denies many students the chance to becomesuccessful writers. One reason for this is that tacit knowledge is, by definition, hard to teachand difficult to find in written and substantive form.

Boice (1993) discusses reasons the most often named for writing blocks: internal censors,fears of failure, perfectionism, early negative experiences, procrastination, and poor mentalhealth. He concludes that blocking seldom has a single cause, and that many different mal­adaptive cognitions may be related. He ends up in a list of different methods aimed at curingthe problem. First, oldest and best known are variations on automaticity, referring to writingwith reduced awareness of what is being written. The most widely used strategy of the mildlydissociative strategies is free writing, where the writer lets the text flow without being critical.It has proven helpful for inducing temporary momentum in formerly blocked academic writ­ers. Second, Boice (1993) refers to the practical advice on regular writing: regimen. Thisincludes, for instance, constitutive strategies that help induce lasting changes in fluency.Writers who work in regimen of regular writing, regardless of readiness or mood, producemore writing and more creative ideas than do writers who wait for inspiration before begin­ning. Third, cognitions of writing are crucial in avoiding blocking. Writers need to engage in

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 355

active metacognitions about writing that will help them to talk about problems and strategies,to effectively monitor their writing, and to develop a variety of writing strategies. This isclosely related 1.0the fourth treatment: need for external pressures and social supports to makewriting efficient and effective. Indeed, academic environment seems to be far from optimalwhen it comes to social scaffolding.

The main principles of activating instruction

In writing, activating instruction has ambitious goals. The central idea is to enable stu­dents to view the act of writing as an aid to their learning, a tool to be used in acquiring mas­tery over new information, and a means of revealing their present understanding of a givensubject (Healy, 1981). It is intented to support the process of writing with the help of peergroups. Second, our learning-by-writing excercises are based on the idea that not just any writ­ing fosters study and thinking skills: excercises that are aimed at enhancing knowledge trans­forming (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987) are the means that may best help the development,when carried out in meaningful social interaction.

Thus, the framework of activating instruction is a synthesis of various theoretical ideas. Itis based on three general principles that can be derived from the points presented above:

I) Diagnosing and activating. It is important to diagnose the quality and level of stu­dents' (mis)conceptions in the beginning of instruction. Same excercises that makediagnosing possible, like focused free-writing, also help students to activate their pre­vious knowledge.

2) Fostering the learning process and reflective thinking. It is essential to make students'strategies and knowledge open to discussion and reflection during the course. The ideaof instructional scaffolding may be applied, for example, by using learning logs (orjournals), small group discussions and some special forms of focused free-writing.

3) Giving feedback and challenging misconceptions. It is important that students getfeedback from both their peers and from the teacher. After the course is over, it isimportant to make clear what has been the basis of evaluation and how the studentmight enhance study habits and approaches in order to make the performance better inthe future.

The following sections describe how activating instruction may be realized in concretesettings . The evaluation of the outcomes is not a simple mission, and requires innovation also.

Method

Subjects

In Finland, students participate in an entrance examination in order to apply to a 6-yearstudy program combining undergraduate and graduate studies in psychology. This programgives the legitimate right to act as a professional psychologist. Of other European programs,Finnish program most closely resembles German "Diplom-Psychologen-Studium", InUniversity 0 f Helsinki, approximately 35-45 students are accepted in the psychology programeach year.

Several groups of psychology students took part in this study during 1986-1992, a total of1t4 subjects. These students had started their studies in 1982, 1984, and 1986: Course 82(Traditional), Course 84 (Mixed), and Course 86 (Activated), respectively. Of these students,Course 82 (11=44) did not participate in activating instruction, Course 84 (n==33) were intro­duced the new methods in the middle of their studies, and students from Course 86 (n==3?)started in the redesigned curriculum.

356 K. LONKA& K. AHOLA

Instructional methods and procedures

The Department of Psychology was used as a "laboratory" for instructional innovations.The structure of the whole curriculum was redesigend in cooperation with the students in1985. Teachers were trained to apply activating instruction.

The instructional methods were various. They included journal writing and learning logs,different learning-by-writing activities, such as focused free-writing, activating lectures, and aso called Suzuki-method in laboratory courses, where students were challenged with a verydifficult research problem in the beginning of their studies. A total of 10 professors and teach­ers conducted different kinds of activating courses during the Academic Years 1986-1987 and1987-1988. Later, most of them continued activating instruction as their steady approach toteaching. In this paper, two examples are presented: an activating lecture and a writing­process seminar.

An activating lecture. The central idea of an activating lecture is that the teacher does notview lectures as situations where knowledge is presented by the teacher and acquired by thestudents. Rather, the control of the learning process is shared (Vermunt, 1989) in a way thatstudents have the right and the responsibility for active participation.

In the beginning of the term, a pretest is administrated which aims at diagnosing centralconceptions and domain-specific knowledge. If possible, students' learning styles are alsodiagnosed. Students are given feedback of their preformance and possible misconceptions arebeing discussed. Also, the information provided by the pretest is used for tailoring the courseaccording to students' needs.

In the beginning of sessions, students are often asked to write about the topic or a centralquestion for 5 minutes. After this, they are asked to read out loud what they have written to agroup of 3 to 4 students. The small group then thinks about what they know about the topicand what more they need to know. Finally, each group presents their summaries and questionsto the teacher. Afterwards, a lecture or a discussion may take place, or students go to libraryfor more information. This technique, called "stealing", is modified on the basis of Healy(1986). The idea is both to diagnose previous knowledge and to activate the domain in stu­dents' minds. The knowledge is not given by the teacher, but instead, constructed by the learn­ers.

In the end of each session, students write learning logs where they discuss what they havelearned, what more they would like to know, and what puzzles them about the domain or whatis problematic in their own learning. The teacher then reads the logs or at least samples ofthem. In the beginning of the next session, the logs are discussed and feedback given. Also,the idea is to take logs into account in future instruction and clarify those points that wereunclear or hard to understand. The use of learning logs helps the teacher to support the learn­ing process. Also, writing a log helps students to be more reflective on their own learning.

From time to time, the teacher may lecture in a quite traditional way. However, since thestudents continously engange in various activities and gradually learn to share their learningprocess with the others, they are quite likely to participate in discussion. The teacher shouldnot be too rigid. It is not a good idea to plan beforehand a tight schedule for a lecture intendedto be 'activating. Instead, the teacher must be well aware of what are the central points that thestudents are supposed to understand after the session is over.

The assessment is an essential part of an activating lecture, because students' learning isknown to be regulated by expectations regarding the exam (Vermunt, 1989). Therefore, theexam aims at diagnosing the central domain-specific conceptions and thinking skills. Usually,the exam takes place two weeks before the end of the course. After this, a feedback session isarranged where the exam papers are discussed.

A writing-process seminar. The objectives of writing-process seminars are: to preventblocks in writing, to support the development of students' writing process, and to enhancetheir ability to write scientific papers in their own domain. Especially, the seminars arethought to support the future thesis writing.

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 357

On the basis of our experience, the optimal number of participants in this kind of seminaris from four to eight students. One of the main objectives in the beginning is to create anatmosphere that is not threatning.

In the beginning of the term, students are asked to write freely on different topics andread out loud what they have written. Then they are trained to apply gentle feedback strategieson each other's drafts (adopted from Healy, 1986): 1. While one student is reading, the otherslisten carefully and write down strong points, that is, important and good ideas, and questions(i.e., what they do not understand). 2. After the writer has finished reading, he/she is askedquestions and presented strong points. 3. The writer underlines the strong points and writesdown the questions. It is important that the students do not start discussion at this point,because the questions are to be answered in the second draft. Also, it is the writer's task todecide which comments are going to be taken into account.

Also, students are provided metalevel knowledge on the writing process by presentingthem research on different writing strategies (e.g., knowledge telling and knowledge trans­forming by Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). They are given advice in practical matters, such ashow to write references. Finally, students are helped in finding a topic to write about. This isdone by asking them to write short drafts on topics that they are interested in, and by givingthem feedback on how to restrict the topic.

In the middle of the term, students bring the first draft of their essay to the seminar. Allparticipants read the drafts beforehand, and gentle feedback is provided. It is possible to dis­cuss 2-3 drafts during one session. After this, students go on writing the final version.

In the end of the term, all students give a conference-like paper presentation. As in realconferences, they bring in the final version of their paper. This is read beforehand by all par­ticipants. Also, each student prepares an oral presentation. Each presentation is IS minutes andafter that, a discussion of 15 minutes takes place. Thus, 2-3 presentations are given during onesession.

Evaluation of Activating Instruction

Data

a) Questionnaires. Course 86 (Activated) were sent questionnaires after their first andfourth year of studies. Course 82 (Traditional) and Course 84 (Mixed) were sent ques­tionnaires only after the fourth year. The questionnaires consisted of both structuredand open-ended questions, where students were asked to tell about their interests,plans, and study habits and to evaluate the program and instruction in general. Thesections of the questionnaire reported in this study consist of the following open-endedand structured questions:

1. What are the strong and weak aspects you find in the instruction provided by theDepartment of Psychology?

2. Has something prevented you from studying full-time? (maternal leave, economicalproblems, lack of motivation, etc.) Please describe below.

3. How often do you write (voluntarily) texts related to your studies (other than exams,lecture notes, or seminar papers)? Check: almost every day (5), at least once a week(4), about every other week (3), once a month (2), or not at all (I).

4. How do you evaluate the Department of Psychology has helped you to develop in thefollowing domains? (Check the scale 1-5: from "not at all" to " very much"): Generalknowledge of psychology, scientific thinking or methodology, personality theories,developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, experimental neuropsychology,clinical neuropsychology, clinical applications, new applications in the field, generalwriting skills, thesis writing skills, research methods, skills in human interaction, orability to work independently.

358 K. LaNKA & K. AHOLA

b) Archive data. Students' academic progress (as documented by Faculty) was followedin detail from 1986 to 1992 on the basis of records. The success in entrance exam wasscored (0-9), as well as points given for admission on the basis of high school diploma(0-9). The study success was scored after one and three years of studying: the meannumber of credit points (1-180) and the grade point average (GPA, I -3). The studysuccess was scored after five years of studying: the grade of master's thesis (1-6), thegrade of final exam (1-3), and status, i.e., interrupted (I), undergraduate (2), MA stu­dent (3), or graduated (4). Also, the number of activating courses taken was counted.

c) Evaluation forms. Also, anonymous evaluation forms were collected of all students inthe end of each individual course. In the beginning of the project (1986- I987), theforms mainly consisted of open-ended questions. The structured evaluation formswere later developed (1989- I992) on the basis of the answers given to the followingopen-ended questions: What was the central issue in this course? What were theadvantages of the instructional method? What were the less favourable sides (disad­vantages) of the method? The structured evaluation forms consisted of 54 multiplechoice questions grouped on the basis ofthe following dimensions:

I. Knowledge acquisition. Whether essential facts were being presented, enough infor­mation was covered, and if the knowledge presented was up-to-date.

2. Study and thinking skills. Had study skills, thinking skills, and metacognitive skillsbeen supported? Had the students' ability to receive and provide feedback beenincreased?

3. Scientific and professional methods. Whether students felt they had learned methodo­logy, statistical methods, testing skills, or professional skills?

4. Interestingness. Did the course promote interest or evoke enthusiasm?

5. Understanding. Was critical thinking fostered? Did students find a new way of think­ing? Did a new point of view emerge? Was deep level thinking encouraged?

6. The quality of teaching. Whether the teacher was well-prepared, and the objectives ofinstruction were clear enough. Did instructional procedure fit the content? What wasthe quality of interaction between students and teacher?

7. External arrangements. Whether the workload and level of difficulty were appropriate,and the pace of learning not too fast. Whether course readings were good. Was thesize of the group suitable?

Thus, the idea of the evaluation forms was not to concentrate on teachers' personality,but instead, students were engouraged to reflect on which aspects of learning were best fos­tered in the course. Also, students were also encouraged to estimate their own contribution tothe learning and instruction process. Because students had found the form too time-consum­ing, form was analyzed and only 27 best items were left in 1992.

Data analysis. The data were extensive, and many qualitative aspects (such as students'interests and conceptions of Finnish university curriculum) were left out of the present paper.Many parts of it have also been published in Finnish (Lonka, Ahola, & Kuivasniemi, 1988;Lonka & Ahola, 1990). The focus was on students' open-ended evaluations of instructionalmethods at the department and their academic progress. Evaluation forms and questionnaireswere analyzed, structured parts calculated, and open-ended answers scored: the number ofpositive and negative aspects of instruction mentioned, and the number of obstacles for fuIl­time studying.

On the basis of questionnaires, different groups (year courses) of students were comparedto each other by chi-squares (Table I) and one-way ANOVAs (Table 2). On the basis of eval­uation forms, the activating procedures were compared to traditional methods by t-tests(Figure I). On the basis of academic records, Course 82, Course 84 and Course 86 were com-

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 359

pared to each other to see how they had progressed in the program after five years of studying(Table 3).

Archive data was collected of all students. The number of drop outs was 23 (20 %) dur­ing the six-year follow-up study (see Figure 1). Of those students who continued their studies(n=91), 78 % returned the questionnaire after four years of studying. The number of subjectsin different analyses somewhat varied according to how many students had answered eachspecific question. It was considered unethical to put any pressure on the students for returningthe questionnaires, because it was not made possible for them to answer anonymously.

A principal component analysis (3-component VARIMAX-solution) was applied in orderto see, which aspects clustered together. Only those students were included who had finishedtheir final exam before 1993 (n=48). The variables were: number of activating courses taken,the number of positive aspects (of instruction) mentioned, the number of negative aspectsmentioned, how often writes voluntarily, GPA and the number of credit points after oneyear/after three years, entrance exam success, high school diploma, number of obstacles men­tioned for full-time studying, the grade of Master's thesis, the grade of final exam, and the sta­tus of studying after five years.

Results

Advantages ofactivating instruction in comparison to traditional instruction

These results are based on the questionnaires sent to the students after four years ofstudying, and specifically, based on the answers for the question "What are the positive andnegative aspects of instruction at the Department?". In all courses (Course 82, Course 84,Course 86) the mean number was approximately one advantage spontaneously mentioned pereach student. There were no significant differences between different year courses in thisrespect. However, the quality and content of the answers were different across Courses 82, 84and 86.

Table 1

The advantages ofinstruction spontaneously mentioned by the students (percent mentioned)

Group

Traditional Mixed Activated

Aspect (n=27) (n=22) (n=20)

Instructional method 11 46 35Technical quality of teaching 19 18 0Teachers' personal contribution II 14 5Students' active role 15 36 40Contents 30 9 10Atmosphere 0 18 5

Table 1 shows that students in traditional curriculum very seldom mentioned the instruc­tional methods as good points, whereas students in mixed and activating curricula mentionedthis aspect more often. The differences were statistically significant between Courses 82 and84 (.rZ(1,N=69)=7.3,p<.01) and between Courses 82 and 86 (.rZ(l,N=69)=3.8,p<.05). Anotherclear difference between those who had participated in activating instruction and other stu­dents was that Course 82 (Traditional) seldom mentioned students' active role, whereas both

360 K. LONKA & K. AHOLA

Courses 84 and 86 mentioned this quite often . Again, Course 82 significantly differed fromboth Course 84 er(1 ,N=69)=5 .3, p< .05) and Course 86 (,r2( I ,N=69)=3.8, p <.05). Also,Course 84 (Mixed) mentioned the atmosphere in instructional settings most often as an advan ­tage and, in this respect, differed significantly from Course 82 who did not mention this at all<x2(1 ,N=69)=5.3, p<.05) . Both Courses 82 and 84 mentioned technical quality of teaching asbeing an advantage, but Course 86 (Activated) did not mention this . In this respect, Course 82and Course 86 differed significantly <x2(1 ,N= 69) =4.1, p<.05).

In sum, when students were asked advantages of instruction at the department, students inactivating curriculum paid much less attention to technical quality of teaching and to teacher'spersonal role than did the other courses. Course 84 and Course 86 mentioned instructionalmethods and students ' active role more often than did students in traditional curriculum.Contents were mentioned more often and the atmosphere was not mentioned at all by the lat­ter . Thus, it seems that students in traditional curriculum tended to concentrate more on con­tent, teachers' person and their technical teaching skills, whereas the students in activating set­tings concentrated on atmosphere, students' role in the learn ing process and on the instruction­al methods.

Development ofknowledge and skills

Table 2 shows how Courses 82, 84 and 86 differed in terms of how they thought they hadgained knowledge and skills in the program. Different years' courses were compared by one­way ANOVAs. It must be noted that these differences probabl y reflect changes in the contentof the curriculum, rather than the effect of activating instruction.

Table 2

Different domains learn ed as evaluated by the students. Means ratings (1-5)

Group

Traditional Mixed Activated

Aspect (n=25) (11=22) (n=22)

General knowledge of psychology 3.9 3.9 3.5

Scientific thinking, methodology 2.8 2.9 3.3

Specific knowledge of- personality 3.7 3.1 3.0**- developmental 4.1 3.2 2.9***-cognitive 3.4 3.9 4.0- experimental neurops. 2.4 2.7 3.2*- clinical neurops. 2.9 2.7 3.0- clinical applications 2.7 2.7 2.4- history ofps. 2.8 3.3 2.7- new applications 1.9 2.2 2.5*

Skills developed in- writing 2.4 3.0 3.4**- thesi s writing 2.3 2.7 3.2*- clinical work 2.8 1.8 1.8- research methods 2.6 2.7 3.3*- interaction 2.0 2.2 1.9- independent work 3.0 2.7 2.6

Note. • p<.05,·· p<.OI, • • • p<.OOI.

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 361

Knowledge. Courses 84 (Mixed) and 86 (Activated) more often reported that they hadlearned a lot of experimental neuropsychology (F(2,66)=3.3, p<.05) and new applications(F(2,67)=3.4, p<.05) than did Course 82 (Traditional). However, Courses 84 and 86 reportedless often that they had learned a lot of developmental psychology (F(2,66)=9.8, p<.Ol) andpsychology of personality (F(2,67)=5.3, p<.Ol) than did Course 82.

Skills. Bota Courses 84 and 86 felt more often that the program had enhanced their skillsboth in written communication (F(2,67)=5.7,p<.01) and in thesis writing (F(2,67)=3.7, p<.05)than did Course 82. Students in Course 86 felt most often that they had developed researchskills (F(2,66)='3.1, p<.05) compared to Courses 82 and 84.

Evaluation forms

On the basis of evaluation forms, activating instruction differed significantly from tradi­tional teaching, methods. In several sets of evaluation data during 1986-1992 (Lonka et al.,1988; Lonka &. Ahola, 1990), a similar pattern was found: students associated the developmentof study skills and the learning of scientific methods significantly more often with the newprocedures, whereas increase in knowledge base was more often associated with the traditionalcourses. Two samples of data are presented here, one from fall term 1986 (open-ended evalua­tion form), and another from the Academic Year 1989-1990 (structured evaluation form).

In 1986, activating courses and traditional lectures were compared to each other on thebasis of open-ended question "What was the central issue in the course?". A total of 96 formswere returned from the activating courses and 164 forms from the traditionallectures. The dif­ferences were the following:

I. Only 2.4% of participants in lecture courses mentioned they had learned study orresearch methods, whereas 40% mentioned this on the activating courses (t(106)=7.4,p<.OO I). On activating courses, they expressed this by saying: "I learned how to inte­grate statistics with content", "I learned experimental thinking", "I learned more aboutneuropsychological methods", etc. This difference was most likely due to the fact thatactivating courses were more often aimed at instruction in scientific methods andskills than were the traditional courses.

2. Study skills were more often mentioned on activating courses (24%) than on tradition­al courses (3%), and the difference was statistically significant (1(121 )=4.5, p<.OO 1).For instance: "I learned how to write scientific text", "I can express myself better", "Ilearned to pose questions on the content", "my cooperation skills developed", "1learned effective ways to study", etc.

3. More students mentioned that their knowledge had increased on the subject on tradi­tional courses (62%) than on the activating courses (43%), and this difference was sig­nificant (1(121 )=3.1, p<.O1). Students mentioned aspects like "I got new informationabout personality", "my knowledge of neuropsychology increased", etc.

4. Understanding was mentioned more often as a central issue in activating courses thanin traditional courses (40% vs, 22%, 1(121)=2.6, p<.Ol). Students expressed this bysaying, for example, "I learned to look at the textbooks critically", "I understood thatthere are several points of view", "the course activated my thinking", "my conceptionof scientific knowledge became clearer", and "I learned to question whether there isany sense in psychology at all".

5. Interestingness or enthusiasm was seldom mentioned in any courses, but much moreoften in activating than in the other courses (9.4% vs. 0.6%, (t(121)=2.2, p<.05).Examples of this category were: "I became interested in neural level functioning, too","this course raised some interesting ideas", "instruction was encouraging".

6. Students mentioned the quality of teaching or external arrangements as often in acti­vating as in traditional courses.

362 K. LONKA & K. AHOLA

In 1989-1990, structured evaluations were applied. Figure I shows the differencesbetween activating courses and traditional lectures as evaluated by the students. In general,activating courses got significantly higher ratings than lectures. There was, however, no dif­ference in terms of knowledge.

I.Activiting (n=68J _ Lecture (n=14 0) I

2.1

2 .4

2 .2

2.4

2 .4

2 4

1,5 2 2,5 3

External an. •• )

Qual. of teaching •• )

Understanding • •)

Learning methods "J

StUdyskills "J

Interest .)

Knowledge acquisition

o 0,5

Figure 1. Structured evaluations 1989-1990. Differences between activating instruction andtraditional lectures (* p<.OI, ** p<.OOl)

Students' academic progress

Table 3 shows different aspects of study success. Different courses did not differ in termsof high school grades, which indicates that there were no differences in basic intellectual func­tioning. However, Course 82 (Traditional) got higher grades from the entrance exam. Afterfirst and third year of studies, Course 82 had significantly more credit points than had Courses84 (Mixed) and 86 (Activated). Also, grades of students in traditional curriculum were higherin the beginning. However, there were no more differences in grades after the third year. Table3 also shows that the number of activating courses taken did increase from Course 82 toCourse 86. There were no differences in terms of voluntary writing activities, nor in the num­ber of obstacles for full-time studying.

Table 3 also shows that the thesis grades did not differ significantly among differentyears' courses, although Course 86 got slightly better grades. A statistically significant con­nection was found between the year course and the grade obtained from the final exam,Courses 84 and 86 getting the highest grades. However, only the first students of Course 86were graduated in 1992. The pattern may not remain the same after all students have graduat­ed - it possible that those who first graduate are better students in general.

In Figure 2, Courses 82, 84 and 86 are compared to each other after five complete yearsof studying. It shows that more students of Course 86 had graduated than those of Courses 82and 84. Also, students in Course 82 were most likely to remain in basic undergraduate level ofstudying, whereas Courses 84 and 86 were more likely to have reached the advanced (BA)level. None of the students in Course 86 remained at the basic level in the sixth year of theirstudying. The distributions of different courses differed significantly from each othercr(6,N==114)==15.4,p<.02).

ACT IVATING INSTRUCTION 363

Table 3

Various measures ofstudy success and background information ofstudents in different yearcourses

Group

Measure Traditional Mixe d Activated(Course 82) (Course 84) (Course 86)

High School SuccessM(SD) 8.2 (0.9) 8.3 (0.9) 8.0 (1.0)n 44 29 33F(2,103)=.75

Entrance Exam SuccessM(SD) 8.7 (0.7) 7.7 (0.4) 7.7 (0.5)n 44 29 33F(2,103)=42.9***

1st Year Credi: PointsM(SD) 32.4 (10.1) 27.7 (8.4) 26.4 (9.5)n 36 24 28F(2,85)=3 .5*

3rd Year Credit PointsM(SD) 89.4 (21.9) 69.8 (16.7) 71.3 (21.1)n 36 24 28F(2,85=9.1***

1st YearGPAM(SD) 2.2 (2.3) 2.0 (2.9) 1.9 (3.2)n 36 23 28F(2,84)=6.2**

3rd Year GPAM(S£~ 2.1 (2.1) 2.0 (2.6) 2.1 (1.5)n 36 24 28F(2,85)=1.2

Final Exam GradeM(SD) 1.9 (0.6) 2.0 (0.7) 2.5 (0.5)n 34 17 14F(2,62)=4.3*

MA Thesis GradeM(SD) 3.7 (1.2) 3.8 (1.1 ) 4.4 (1.0)n 34 18 17F(2,66)=1.9

Voluntary Writing ActivityM(SD) 2.4 (1.3) 2.7 (1.1 ) 2.7 (1.3)n 27 22 22F(2,68)=0.51

Number of Activating Courses Taken

M (SD) 0.1 (OJ) 0.9 (1.0) 1.6 (1.1)n 26 21 21F(2 ,65)=1 7.13***

Number of Obstacles for Full-Time StudyingM (SD) 0.7 (0.8) 0.7 (1.0) 0.8 (0.9)n 27 22 21F(2,67)=.O I

No/e . • p<.05, •• p<.O I, ••• p<.OO I.

364 K. LONKA & K. AHOLA

ElDropped outiNot known _ Basic level CAdvanced (post-BA) C Graduated

60 55

50 45

40 38 38

3023 2 4 24

20

10

oC82 (n=45} C84(n=33) C86(n=37)

Figure 2. Academic progress after five academic years

Aspects related to success in psychology studies

Table 4 shows a summary of three-principal component varimax solution. Principal com­ponent I (PC I) may be labelled as high-quality active learning. On this principal component,variables score high that are related to the grade of Master's Thesis and final exam. The num­ber of activating courses taken loads strongly on this principal component. It is interesting thatthe numbers of both negative and positive comments on instruction have high loadings on thisprincipal component: it is possible that students who are active and critical give both negativeand positive feedback more genereously than the others. Principal component 2 (PC2) may belabelled as efficient school learning. Variables that are related to success in high school,entrance exam, and during first years of studying have high loadings on PC2. Also, the gradeof final exam loads moderately on this principal component. Principal component 3 (PC3)may be called as pace of studying. On PC3, only status of studying after five years and thenumber of third-year credit points load positively, and the number of obstacles for full-timestudying loads negatively.

Discussion

The follow-up results of this case study must be interpreted with caution. Under the cir­cumstances, there are many uncontrollable variables, and we cannot really say that activatinginstruction caused any changes. For instance, the culture of learning may have changed duringthe six-year follow-up period. In this kind of setting, it is not possible to have true controlgroups, when the innovation quite global in nature, including changes in the curriculum aswell as in the instructional procedures.

However, it is possible to conclude that different years' courses perceived their learningenvironment differently. Students in traditional and mixed curriculum appreciated differentaspects of instruction after four years of studying than did students in the new curriculum(Table 1). In general, Courses 82 and 84 appreciated technical quality of teaching. However,students in the traditional curriculum did not see students' role being as active as the othersdid, criticized the instructional methods that were applied, and did not mention the atmosphereas an advantage of instruction. Students in the mixed curriculum could be described as havingwhat we called "a honeymoon effect"; they were the most satisfied with the instruction and

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 365

curriculum, and especially, spontaneously mentioned the atmosphere as an advantage of theinstructional environment. This was probably based on the fact that something new and ecxit­ing was introduced for them for the first time. Those students who started in the new curricu­lum could be described as "realistic" in their approach - they took activating instruction forgranted, probably because no radical changes took place while they were studying. However,they were significantly more pleased with the instruction than students in the traditional cur­riculum. Those who did not study in the traditional curriculum found that the program hadsupported their written expression, research qualifications, and skills needed in thesis writing.

Table 4

All students who had taken their final exam (n=48). Principal component loadings scales in a3-principal component Varimax-solution (Varimax Rotation J; loadings <.30 omitted)

Principal components and loadings

Measures

I. Number ofActivating Courses Taken2. Number ofNegative Comments on Instruction3. Number of Positive Comments on Instruction4. MA TheSIS Grade5. Final Exam Grade6. 1st Year Credit Points7. Voluntary Writing Activity8. 1st Year GPA

10. 3rd Year GPA11. Entrance Exam Success12. 3rd Year Credit Points13. High School Success14. Status Alter 5 Years15. Number of Obstacles for Full-Time Studying

Eigen value% explained varianceCumulative percentage

PCl

.73

.62

.62

.54

.51-.43.38

-.49-.43

2.7920.020.0

PC2

.36

.85

.84

.54

.52

.46

2.4617.637.6

PC3

.49

.89-.66

1.8813.451.0

Those who participated in activating instruction studied slower in the beginning of theirundergraduate years. The teachers soon realized that students did not get enough credits forthe activating courses, which were laboursome in many cases. The same problem has previ­ously been recognized among many others who apply process-oriented instruction (Hettich,1990). Our department started to adapt the number of credits according to students' workloadin 1987, but this was too late for many students of the mixed curriculum. Their slow studyingpace may be partly explained on the basis of this problem.

It is possible that those who participated in activating instruction slowed up their studyingpace in the beginning of the studies but enhanced their later studies, because the students hadthoroughly proceduralized and internalized some important study skills. Those who survivedthe first college years with surface strategies, scored lots of credit points in the beginning, butmay have found thesis writing and final exam more difficult.

On the basis of questionnaires and evaluation forms, students clearly appreciated activat­ing instruction. They thought it made studying more interesting, fostered understanding, anddeveloped s.udy skills. As in process-oriented instruction in general (Applebee, 1986), theeffect of activating instruction was experienced more significant on procedural than on declar­ative learning.

366 K. LONKA& K. AHOLA

The results of the principal component analysis suggest that there are two qualitativelydifferent ways of progressing in psychology studies (at least at University of Helsinki), andneither of them is directly related to the status of studying after five years: 1) High-qualityactive learning, which may be slow in the beginning, but provides qualitatively better resultsin the long run, and 2) effective school-type learning which is related to success in early phas­es of studying. The third principal component, associated with pace of studying, appears to berelated to neither of the above mentioned. It simply reflects the chance to keep up full-timestudying without extra obstacles.

At the moment, the "effectiveness" of departments and institutions is being inspectedintensively around Europe. The most important lesson we can learn of the present small casestudy is that effects of instructional innovations may emerge after a long period of time. Hadwe looked at the follow-up data after three years, it would have been very discouraging.However, only after five years could we tell something about the quantitative and qualitativeoutcomes of the instructional procedures. Complex skills of expertise take a long time todevelop - what appears to be "inefficient" within a short period of time, may be truly effectivein the long run!

References

Applebee, A.N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: toward a reconceptuatization of process instruction. In A.R.

Petrovsky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching ofwriting. Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the

Study ofEducation. Part II (pp. 95-1 13). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Applebee, A.N., & Langer, J.A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities.

Language Arts, 60, 168-175.

Bereiter, C.; & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Boice, R. (1993). Writing blocks and tacit knowledge. Journal ofHigher Education, 64, 19-54.

Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E., & Gunstone, R.F. (1985). Consequences of knowledge about physical phenomena. In

L.H.T. West & A.L. Pines, A.L. (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61-90). Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change withing and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discov­

ery in science. In R.N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models ofScience: Minnesota studies in the philosophy ofscience

(Vol. 15, pp. 129-(86) Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M.J. (1988). The nature ofexpertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C.H. Fredriksen & J.F. Dominic (Eds.),

Writing: The nature, development, and teaching ofwritten communication. Vol 2. Writing: Process, development

and communication (pp. 39-58). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review ofPsychology, 40, 631­

666.

Healy, M.K. (1981). Purpose in learning to write: An approach to writing in three curriculum areas. In C.H. Fredriksen

& J,F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication. Vol 2.

Writing: Process, development and communication (pp.223-234). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Healy, M.K. (1986, August). Jyvaskylti writing project summer seminar. University of Jyvaskyla. Chair: Pirjo

Linnakyla, August 5-8, 1986, Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Hettich, P. (1990). Journal writing: Old fare or nouvelle cuisine? Teaching ofPsychology, 17,36-39.

Hounsell, D. (1984). Learning and essay-writing. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D.J., & Entwistle, N.J. (Eds.), The experience

oflearning (pp. 103-123.). Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.

ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION 367

Kuhn, D. (1988). The development ofscientific probiemsolving. New York: Academic Press.

Lonka, K., Ahola, K., & Kuivasniemi, E. (1988). Opetuskokeilu Helsingin yliopiston psykologian laitoksel/a.

Osaraportti J: Menetelmiit ja niiden toimivuus. [New instructional procedures at Department of Psychology,

University of Helsinki. Part I: Procedures and their preliminary evaluation.) Report Series n" A 41. University of

Helsinki, Department of Psychology (Abstract in English).

Lonka, K., & Ahola, K. (1990). Opetuskokeilu Helsingin yliopiston psykologian laitoksella ja sen vaikutus opintojen

kulkuun. [New instructional procedures at Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, and their effect on

the pace of studying.] In H. Jalkanen & R. Makinen (Eds.), Korkeakouluopintojen kulku ja opintoilmapiirit (pp.

47-66.). Institute for Educational Research. Publication Series B. Theory into practice 59. University ofJyvaskyla

(Abstract in English).

Lonka, K. Joram, E., & Bryson, M. (1990, April). Students' changing conceptions oflearning and knowledge. A poster

presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, April 16-20.

Lonka, K. Joram, E., & Bryson, M. (1994, June). Changing conceptions of learning in educational psychology. A paper

presented at EARLl SIG meeting "Comprehension of Verbal and pictorial information". Chair: J.D.H.M.

Vermunt. June 6-8, Helsinki, Finland.

Marton, F., Hounsell, 0.1., & Entwistle, N.1. (Eds.) (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish

Academic Press.

McGovern, T.V., & Hogshead, D.L. (1990). Learning about writing, thinking about teaching. Teaching ofPsychology,

17,5-10.

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

Rinehart & Winston.

Ryan, M.P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76,248-258.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K.A. Andersson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general the­

ory ofexpertise. Prospects and limits (pp. 172-194). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Staats, A.W. (19f:3). Psychology's crisis ofdisunity. Philosophy and methodfor a unified science. New York: Praeger.

Vermunt, J.D.H. M., & van Rijswijk, F.A.W.M. (1988). Analysis and development of students' skill in selfregulated

learning. Higher Education, 17, 647-682.

Vermunt, J.D.HM. (1989). The interplay between internal and external regulation of learning, and the design of

process-oriented instruction. Paper presented at the third Conference of the European Association of Research on

Learning and Instruction, Madrid, September 4-7.

Vosniadou, S. (1991, August). Cognitive development and educational practice. A paper presented in symposium

"Relationships between research on cognitive development, learning, and educational practice" by E. De Corte

(Chair). 4th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Turku, Finland, August 24-28.

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 ofexpertise (pp. 261-286). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L.S. <1978). Mind in society. The development ofhigher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Key words: Expertise, Higher education, Process-oriented instruction.

Received: September 1995

368 K. LONKA & K. AHOLA

Kirsti Lanka. University of Helsinki/Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 11 (Ritarikatu 5), 000 14University of Helsinki, Finland.

Current theme ofresearch:

Educational Psychology Applied Cognitive Science.

Most relevant publications in the field ofPsychology ofEducation:

Lonka, K., & Mikkonen, V. (J 989). Why does the length of an essay-type answer contribute to examination marks?

British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 59, 220-231.

Lonka, K., Lindblorn-Ylanne, S., & Maury, S. (1994). The effect of study strategies on learning from text. Learning and

Instruction, 4, 253-27 I.

Lonka, K., Lindblom-Ylanne (in press). Conceptions of learning, epistemologies and study practices in medicine and

psychology. Higher Education.