Advertisement

Process-oriented instruction: Some considerations

  • Frank P. C. M. de Jong
Article

Abstract

This paper does not attempt to be an introduction on process-oriented instruction by providing all the assumptions and key principles. It rather highlights the necessary epistemological shift in education from learning as a receptive process towards learning as a constructive process. The basis for this shift is not a matter of theoretical considerations but lies in the requirements of personal cognitive functioning in the contemporary community. Process-oriented instruction includes not only this epistomological shift. Consequently, process-oriented instruction does not only focus on the information processing activities in the learning process, but also on the affective and the regulative activities. Moreover, it aims at improving students’ learning competence by enhancing the quality of students’ learning competence by enhancing the quality of students’ cognitive and metacognitive development.

Key words

Knowledge constructions Learning competence Process-oriented instruction Self-regulation 

References

  1. Ali, K.S. (1990). Instructiestrategieën voor het activeren van preconcepties [Instructional strategies for activating preconceptions] (Published dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands) Helmond: Wibro.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C.W., & Roth, K.J. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated learning of science.Advances in Research on Teaching (Vol. 1), 265–309.Google Scholar
  3. Biemans, J.A. (1994). Activation of preconceptions as part of process-oriented instruction. In F.P.C.M. de Jong & B.H.A.M. van Hout-Wolters (Eds.),Process-oriented instruction and learning from text (pp. 27–36). Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J.D., Franks, J.J., Vye, N.J., & Sherwood, R.D. (1986, June). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M.T.H., & Basok (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M.J. (Eds.) (1988).The Nature of Expertise. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic.Educational Psychology Review, 4, 165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Jong, F.P.C.M. (1992).Zelfstandig leren. Regulatie van het leerproces en leren reguleren: een process benadering. [Independent learning. Regulation of the learning process and learning to regulate: a process approach] (published dissertation, Tilburg University, the Netherlands). Tilburg: de Jong.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, F.P.C.M. (1993, August–September).The complementarity of constructivist and self-regulation instructional approaches. Paper presented at the Fifth Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
  11. Duffy, T.M., & Knuth, R.A. (1991). Hypermedia and instruction: Where is the match? In D. Jonassen & H. Mandl (Eds.),Designing hypermedia for learning (pp. 199–225). Heidelberg. FRG: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Hegland, S., & Andre, T. (1992). Helping learners construct knowledge.Educational Psychology Review, 4, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobson, M.J. (1991).Knowledge acquisition, cognitive flexibility, and the instructional applications of hypertext: A comparison of contrasting designs for computer-enhenced learning environments. Unpublished dissertation. Urbana. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  14. Resnick, L.B. (1989). Introduction. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Schmeck, R.R. (Ed.) (1988).Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  16. Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, multimedia. Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (1992).Cognitieve strategieën als onderwijsdoel [Cognitive strategies as educational goal]. Groningen: Wolters-NoordhoffGoogle Scholar
  18. Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992).Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. Naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken [Learning styles and regulation of learning in higher education, Towards process-oriented instruction in autonomous thinking]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  19. Voss, J.F. (1987). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: a problem-solving model.International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon, Portugal/ Springer Netherlands 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank P. C. M. de Jong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of NijmegenHE NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations