The Relationship Between Instructional Strategies and Cognitive Activation in Higher Education: A Student Perspective

Abstract

This study aimed to validate and explore outcomes of a questionnaire assessing instructional strategies and active learning perceptions among students. The questionnaire, developed through iterative processes and validated by experts and student samples, featured 17 vignettes representing various instructional strategies. Factor analysis revealed four distinct themes: Process-Oriented Learning, Cognitive Structuring and Repetition, Scaffolding, and Multimedia Instruction. Findings indicated that although all the strategies were observed in practice, their frequency varied significantly between lecturers, with many strategies being observed by less than half of the students. Notably, strategies such as the testing effect and interleaved practice were perceived as highly activating by students yet were underutilized by lecturers. Methodological considerations highlighted challenges in vignette construction and reliance on student perceptions, suggesting the need for refined measurement techniques and direct observational methods in future studies. Implications for educational practice underscored the importance of targeted professional development, curriculum enhancement informed by effective strategies, and ongoing evaluation to align instructional practices with student engagement. Further research should explore longitudinal impacts and lecturer perspectives to enhance strategy effectiveness and educational outcomes.

Keywords

active learning cognitive engagement instructional strategies higher education cognitive psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

J. R.

(2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). Worth Publishers.

Biwer

de Bruin

A. B. H.

Schreurs

Oude Egbrink

M. G. A.

(2020). Future steps in teaching desirably difficult learning strategies: Reflections from the study smart program. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.07.006

Bjork

E. L.

Bjork

R. A.

(2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to enhance learning. In Gernsbacher

M. A.

Pew

R. W.

Hough

L. M.

Pomerantz

J. R.

(Eds.). Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Kempler

T. M.

Krajcik

J. S.

(2004). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In Sawyer

R. K.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). Cambridge University Press.

Bonwell

C. C.

Eison

J. A.

(1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Bonwell

C. C.

Sutherland

T. E.

(1996). The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(67), 3–16.

Børte

Nesje

Lillejord

(2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597–615.

Chi

M. T. H.

Wylie

(2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

Chiu

P. H. P.

Cheng

S. H.

(2016). Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: A two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1196475

10.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

11.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

12.

Deslauriers

McCarty

L. S.

Miller

Callaghan

Kestin

(2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 116(39), 19251–19257.

13.

Deslauriers

Schelew

Wieman

(2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.

14.

Dunlosky

Rawson

K. A.

Marsh

E. J.

Nathan

M. J.

Willingham

D. T.

(2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

15.

Felder

R. M.

Brent

(2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1–5.

16.

Fischer

Hänze

(2019). Back from “guide on the side” to “sage on the stage”? Effects of teacher-guided and student-activating teaching methods on student learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 26–35.

17.

Freeman

Eddy

S. L.

McDonough

Smith

M. K.

Okoroafor

Jordt

Wenderoth

M. P.

(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8410–8415.

18.

Gerbier

Toppino

T. C.

(2015). The effect of distributed practice: Neuroscience, cognition, and education. Trends in Neuroscience & Education, 4(3), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2015.01.001

19.

Hartikainen

Rintala

Pylväs

Nokelainen

(2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276

20.

Jeffries

Maeder

D. W.

(2005). Using vignettes to build and assess lecturer understanding of instructional strategies. Professional Educator, 27(1–2), 17–28.

21.

Kaiser

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–6.

22.

Kember

(2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9177-6

23.

Lumpkin

Achen

R. M.

Dodd

R. K.

(2015). Students perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121–133.

24.

Mayer

R. E.

(2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer

R. E.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press.

25.

Mayer

R. E.

(2022). The multimedia principle. In Mayer

R. E.

Fiorella

(Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 145–157). Cambridge University Press.

26.

Mayer

R. E.

Fiorella

(Eds.). (2022). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

27.

Michael

(2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006.

28.

Michael

Modell

H. I.

(2003). Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms. Routledge.

29.

Owens

D. C.

Sadler

T. D.

Barlow

A. T.

Smith-Walters

(2017). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 50, 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1

30.

Prince

(2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

31.

Slavin

R. E.

(2014). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In Hattie

Anderman

E. M.

(Eds.), International guide to student achievement (Vol. 18, pp. 157–159). Routledge.

32.

Soderstrom

N. C.

Bjork

R. A.

(2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000

33.

Surma

Camp

de Groot

Kirschner

P. A.

(2022). Novice lecturers’ knowledge of effective study strategies. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 996039. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.996039

34.

Sweller

van Merrienboer

J.J.G.

Paas

F.G.W.C.

(1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

35.

Sweller

van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

Paas

(2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

36.

Sweller

(1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

37.

Thurn

C. M.

Edelsbrunner

P. A.

Berkowitz

Deiglmayr

Schalk

(2023). Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework. NPJ Science of Learning, 8(1), 49.

38.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3–17.

39.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB