The regulation of constructive learning processes

Abstract

Background . Classical instructional design theories and constructivist theories disagree on the issue of how high‐quality learning can be realised. Research on student learning has identified a large number of learning components, but the problems of overlap among conceptualisations and the direction of interrelations among constructs have received little attention. Aims . The main aims of this study were: increasing integration of existing models of student learning; gaining understanding of the regulation of constructive learning processes; and investigating the degree to which these phenomena generalise across contexts. Samples . A total of 717 students from an open university (OU) and 795 students from a regular university (RU), from various academic disciplines, participated in the studies. The mean age of the OU students was 36.2 years and of the RU students 22.5 years. Methods . Based on phenomenographic studies, a diagnostic instrument was constructed that covered four learning components: cognitive processing, metacognitive regulation, mental learning models, and learning orientations. It was administered to all students from the samples. Factor analyses on the data were conducted to achieve a more integrated model of student learning. Regression analyses were performed to study the directionality in the regulation of learning processes. Results . Four learning dimensions were consistently found: an undirected, reproduction‐directed, meaning‐directed and application‐directed style. These styles consisted of typical combinations of learning components. Moreover, students' use of constructive processing strategies was explained much better by self‐regulation of learning than by external regulation. These findings were almost identical at both educational institutions, indicating a high degree of generalisability. Conclusions . The integrated model of student learning developed in this study can reduce the overlap among learning component conceptualisations considerably. The results stress the importance of process‐oriented teaching models for improving the quality of student learning.