Investigating Conceptions of Computer Mastery and the Acquisition of Database Applications
Kenneth J. Luterbach luterbachk2ecu.edu East Carolina University
The purpose of this study is threefold. First, this study seeks to
discover how to improve instruction concerning database skills. Second,
this study seeks to better understand conceptions of computer mastery.
Third, this study seeks to refine theories concerning instructional
strategies. To address those goals, this study investigated undergraduate
students in three intact introductory computing classes as they engaged in
three methods of instruction designed to help students acquire database skills
and to enhance their conceptions of computer mastery. The three classes
were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups. Students in
the control group engaged in traditional teacher-led (behavioral) instruction.
Students in the experimental groups engaged in either BIG or WIG
constructivist instruction. In BIG (Beyond Information Given)
constructivist instruction, students conceive of phenomena in light of an
expert's framework, whereas students engaged in WIG (Without Information Given)
constructivist instruction conceive of phenomena without a guiding framework.
This quasi-experimental study follows the pretest/posttest control group
design. This study measured conceptions of computer mastery with concept
map scores. Additionally, the researcher considered qualitative measures
of database mastery. With respect to posttest concept map scores, Scheffé post-hoc tests revealed that the BIG group scored
significantly higher than both the WIG and control groups. This result
favors teaching methods that include the presentation of a conceptual framework
before students engage in instructional activities. Although the
comparisons of databases revealed few differences among the groups, the need
for explicit instruction on user-interface design became clear.
A. Objectives
This work compares three methods for teaching students about database
applications. The teaching methods, or instructional strategies, are
based on behaviorism and constructivism. Behaviorism leads instructional
designers to critically analyze tasks, often reducing complex tasks to a series
of simpler ones, in order to develop stimulus-response or drill-and-practice
instruction. In contrast, constructivism leads instructional designers to
retain the complexity of authentic tasks, which enables learners to construct
knowledge through discovery, perhaps guided by a teacher. This
immediately raises questions about how much students should discover or, with
respect to instructors, how much guidance teachers should provide.
This study considers whether teachers should provide learners with information
about a field or withhold it. Drawing on the language of Perkins (1991),
this study seeks to determine whether to develop: (1) BIG (Beyond the
Information Given) constructivist instruction; (2) WIG (Without the Information
Given) constructivist instruction; or (3) behavioral instruction.
B. Theoretical Framework
When discussing instructional methods, researchers typically discuss the
influence of educational psychology. After all, educational psychology is
the root social science for technologies that seek to enhance learning (Clark,
1989). Accordingly, researchers often discuss behavioral or cognitive
learning theories in order to provide a framework for studying instructional
methods (Chen, 2002; Klassen & Willoughby, 2003; Pruden, 2002). That foundation suffices for many
researchers, but researchers and practitioners may gain additional insights
into instructional methods by considering the work and perspectives of
educational technologists.
Educational technologists founded the first generation of instructional design
theories (Dick and Carey, 1985; Gagné, 1985; Merrill,
1983; Romiszowski, 1992) on behaviorism.
Instruction based on behaviorism (Hull, 1952; Skinner, 1954; Spence,
1956) calls for drill-and-practice methods in order to reinforce associations
between instructional stimuli and desired responses. The second
generation of instructional design theories (Di Vesta & Reiber, 1987; Merrill, Li, & Jones, 1990)
is based on cognitivism, which considers mental
processing (Bruner, 1960; Glover, Ronning, & Bruning, 1990). Accordingly, advance organizers (Ausubel, 1960) may appear in cognitivist instruction in order to leverage prior knowledge. Additional methods may
be employed in cognitivist instruction to facilitate
other types of mental processing. About two decades ago, some educational
technologists began to speak of constructivism (Jonassen,
1990; Phillips, 1995; von Glassersfeld, 1991) as a
foundation for a third generation of instructional design theories (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Cognition and
Technology Group, 1991; Cooper, 1993; Jonassen, 1990;
Perkins, 1991). In this study, the researcher developed operational
definitions for each instructional method.
C. Methods
Undergraduate students in three intact introductory computing classes engaged
in three methods of instruction for teaching computer mastery. The 19
students in the control group engaged in traditional instruction.
Students in the other two classes engaged in constructivist instruction,
which included: (1) Discussions of authentic computing problems; (2) An attempt
by students to design and to develop a database for a business application; (3)
Feedback intended to improve the databases devised by students; and (4) Student
collaboration. Additionally, the 22 students in the so-called BIG (Beyond
the Information Given) group, considered a conceptual outline of computer
mastery. The outline served to provide one particular conceptual
perspective on computer mastery. In contrast, the 18 students in the
so-called WIG (Without the Information Given) constructivist class, learned
about computing concepts without the broad perspective provided by the outline
of computer mastery. During the study, students in the BIG group were
reminded of the outline and encouraged to modify it as they saw fit.
Except for attention to the outline, the BIG and WIG groups engaged in
the same types of instructional activities.
As per the control group, each week the BIG and WIG groups attended one class
in a classroom and one in a computer lab. For students in the control
group, the instructor demonstrated the precise key strokes necessary to create
a database. In contrast, the instructors of the constructivist classes
did not provide such a demonstration. Rather, subjects in the BIG and WIG
classes formed groups consisting of two to five members. Working within
their small groups students worked through exercises that lead to resolution of
authentic computing solutions.
D. Data Sources
To measure conceptions of computer mastery, the subjects completed pretest and
posttest concept maps. The researcher and a second rater scored each
concept map in a manner that generated a positive integer. The researcher
used the analysis of variance statistic to compare the groups. Given this
approach to analyzing concept map scores, the researcher advanced the following
three hypotheses:
1. There will be a statistically significant difference in concept map scores
between the BIG constructivist group and the control group.
2. There will be a statistically significant difference in concept map scores
between the WIG constructivist group and the control group.
3. There will be no statistically significant difference in concept map scores
between the BIG and WIG constructivist groups.
To assess database skills, the researcher evaluated the functionality of the
databases created during instruction.
E. Results and Conclusions
The ANOVA for pretest concept maps does not reveal a statistically significant
difference between the groups: F(2,56) = 0.03, p =0.97. Hence, it
appears that when the study began, the subjects in all three groups held
similar conceptions about computing.
By the end of the study, two students had withdrawn from each of the WIG and
control groups. The ANOVA for posttest concept maps reveals a
statistically significant difference between the groups: F(2,52) = 6.59, p =
0.003. This statistically significant finding indicates that of the three
possible group comparisons, at least one pair of groups is different. Scheffé post-hoc tests identified two significant findings
at the 0.05 level. The difference between the means of the BIG and WIG
groups is statistically significant as is the difference between the means of
the BIG and control groups. Given these post-hoc results, the first hypothesis
is accepted and the second and third are rejected.
The quality of the databases in all three groups was similar. The
researcher was surprised to find, however, that only half of the databases
provided satisfactory user interfaces. Criteria for assessing the
databases were based on the work of Shneiderman (1998) and Williams (1994).
While collecting posttest data, the researcher also distributed a brief
questionnaire. It indicated that students held a generally positive attitude
toward the instructional methods employed during this study. In addition,
the BIG group responded to a question about time spent modifying the
researcher's outline of computer mastery. The mean time for the 22
respondents was 19.3 minutes and the times ranged from 0 to 30 minutes.
The higher concept map scores for the BIG students revealed a greater
increase in cognitive structure compared to the students who engaged in the
alternative instructional activities. Accordingly, this study revealed
the importance of BIG instruction. The students who studied and modified
the outline of computer mastery appear to have developed more sophisticated
conceptions of computing. This has direct teaching implications.
The researcher recommends that computing instructors provide conceptual
overviews to students prior to the completion of assignments.
Coincidentally, this study also revealed weak user-interfaces in the
databases. This identifies a need to teach user-interface design in
introductory computing classes. With respect to theory development, this
study identifies a need to clarify the type of constructivist instruction under
consideration.
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance
organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267-272.
Bednar, A. K., Cunnignham,
D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do
we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional
technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Chen, C. S. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in
an introduction to information systems course. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 20(1), 11-25.
Clark, R. E. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research
in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 37(1), 57-66.
Cognition and Technology Group (1991). Technology and the design of generative
learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.
Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From
behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism.
Educational Technology, 33(5), 12-19.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction
(2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Di Vesta, F. J. & Reiber,
L. P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of
instructional systems. Educational Communications and Technology Journal,
35(4), 213-230.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning
and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Bruning, R. H. (1990). Cognitive psychology for
teachers. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Toward a constructivist view
of instructional design.
Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.
Klassen, K. J. & Willoughby, K. A. (2003).
In-class simulation games: Assessing student learning. Journal of
Information Technology Education, 2, 1-13.
Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models:
An overview of their current status (pp. 279-333). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second generation
instructional design (ID2). Educational Technology, 30(2), 7-14.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a
marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5), 18-23.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces
of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Pruden, H. (2002). Systems state of pedagogy
and the action sequence method. The Business, Education, and Technology
Journal, 4(1), 14-21.
Romiszowski, A. J. (1992). Designing instructional
systems. London, Great Britain: Kogan Page.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface:
Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Longman.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Introduction. In E.
von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in
mathematics education} (xiii-xx). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Williams, R. (1994). The non-designers design book. The non-designer's
design book. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.