COLLEGE STUDENT PREFERENCES FOR ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE AND PERSPECTIVE IN INSTRUCTION: Implications for Traditional and Online Learning Environments Free

A continuing trend in all levels of education is toward creating constructivist and student-centered learning environments. This interest is particularly evident in literature on e-learning, where researchers and designers are enthusiastic regarding the potential of technology to allow for constructivist-oriented pedagogical approaches that have heretofore been difficult to accomplish. Clearly, online learning is not always constructivist in nature; quite the opposite can occur when courses are designed “by taking existing content, converting it to HTML and then viewing it in a browser” (Williams, 2004, p. 15). But collaboration, problem solving, and authentic activities are often cited as new instructional opportunities afforded by the Internet, allowing students to learn alongside their instructors rather than being confined to seats learning from the instructors (Agostinho, Meek, & Herrington, 2005; Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Santhiveeran, 2005).

As these efforts proceed, we feel that litera-ture on college student development may be useful in thinking through best practices. In many traditional and e-based courses, an instructor or professor often also acts as instructional designer, deciding how to design, develop, and implement Internet-based com-ponents of a course. A common approach is to design course activities and assignments that utilize discussion through bulletin boards, chats, and e-mail in order to create an environment where students will be active learners, negotiating and sharing knowledge as opposed to merely receiving information. Moreover, an increasing number of courseware management systems, both commercial (e.g., Blackboard) and open-source (e.g., Moodle, http://moodle.org/), are packaged with default features and capabilities toward these purposes.

Research on the experience of e-learners, often studied with qualitative, individual case designs, has been mixed. While some studies report generally positive levels of engagement and satisfaction (Davidson-Shivers, Muilenburg, & Tanner, 2001; Lee & Busch, 2005; Lockyer, 1999) in distance learning environ-ments, high dropout rates and reports of “student distress” (term from Hara & Kling, 2000) are not uncommon. Some issues frequently cited as student concerns include lack of timely, quality feedback, and ambiguous instructions (Essex & Cagiltay, 2001; Ortiz-Rodriguez, Telg, Irani, Roberts, & Rhoads, 2005; Tricker, Rangecroft, Long, & Gilroy, 2001; Wang-Chavez, Branon, & Mikolaj, 2000). Student grade or age is not typically discussed as a relevant variable in e-learning studies. But the possibility exists that developmental epistemo-logical attitudes of the sample group, along with the instructional intervention itself, can help explain why some case studies of distance learning are able to report generally positive results while others report frustration on the part of students and instructor alike.

An initial, and some argue crucial, procedure for instructional design is the audience (or learner) analysis, where the learners’ personal characteristics and attitudes are assessed in order to create an environment that best suited to those needs (Molenda, Pershing, & Reigeluth, 1996; Song & Keller, 2001). A number of authors have pointed to literature in learning styles and individual differences as holding potential to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of online environments (Lee & Busch, 2005; Masiello, Ramberg, & Lonka, 2005, DeTure, 2004). Less often mentioned is work on epistemological development that occurs across the college years. William Perry’s model of college student development states that students pass from a stage of dualistic thinking (i.e., the teacher has the answers and transmits them to students) to a stage of relativistic thinking (i.e., recognition that different perspectives exist) toward eventual commitment to one of several potentially valid perspectives (Perry, 1970). Baxter-Magolda (1992) presented a similar model in which college students move from being absolute knowers toward being independent and contextual knowers. In a thoughtful review of epistemology literature, Hofer (2001) reviews these and other major perspectives, most of which have in common a starting point in some form of absolute thinking. These models would suggest that along with the dualistic thinking of entering college students comes beliefs that instructors and books hold the knowledge, and it is the student’s job to get (or be given) the knowledge. As Hofer (2001) discusses, one main thrust in epistemology literature is the view that a primary role of education is to facilitate development of students’ thinking towards a more complex understanding of knowledge. To promote this growth, supporting students in their current level will be important as well. Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1962) notion of zone of proximal development, Hofer posits that while sufficient challenge is needed for students’ epistemological growth, “educational press that exceeds their understanding is likely to be ineffective” (p. 374).

In his work focused on “matching models” of instruction, Hunt (1971) presented data showing that students at earlier (lower) conceptual levels profited from highly structured environments, while those at higher levels excelled in low structure (i.e., discovery) envi-ronments. Similar interactions of level of belief by treatment have been reported in studies of computer simulation instruction, with constructivist treatment found most effective on performance (Windschitl & Andre, 1998) or attitudes (Chang & Tsai, 2005) for students at higher epistemological levels. This work on student development suggests that expecting students at earlier stages of development to learn from courses based on principles of negotiation, shared construction, and peer-to-peer learning could be problematic unless approached with sensitivity to these students’ preconceptions of what knowledge is and how learning occurs. And, it follows to reason that attitudes toward distance learning would maintain similar developmental trajectories.

The current study sought to examine the relationship between grade level and two aspects of epistemic beliefs expected to be developmental in nature, absolute knowledge and absolute perspective. Objectives were (a) to determine the factor structure of a brief “preference for absolute instruction” scale created by the authors and (b) to test the hypothesis that scores would decrease with grade level, with students at earlier grade levels showing less tolerance for instruction based on knowledge sharing as opposed to knowledge transmission. Such a finding would have important implications for the design of online learning environments, in that lower-level courses may benefit from more structured instructional designs, at least initially, whereas students in upper-level courses may be better prepared for more open-ended collaborative activities such as peer-managed discussion boards.

Participants in this study represent a conve-nience sample of 174 undergraduate and grad-uate students attending a large public university in the Midwest United States. Students were recruited from eight sections of courses taught in the school of education at that university. Students received an e-mail inviting them to complete a brief online survey (created at http://surveyshare.com). A link within the e-mail led to a webpage containing IRB information. Clicking a link from that webpage to the survey URL acknowledged consent to participate. Our method did not allow us to calculate a reliable acceptance rate, and may be considered a study limitation. Of 184 students who initiated the survey, 10 participants had missing data for one or more items and were therefore not included in analysis.

Items used in the survey (see Appendix) were created by the authors and revised based on pilot data from 35 undergraduates. The final scale of “absolute instruction” consisted of 12 statements that students responded to using a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Eight items were negatively worded and reverse scored. The survey also asked students to indicate grade level and gender. No additional demographic or identifying information was collected.

Four items measured a preference for and belief that knowledge that is unambiguous, and certain. Four items measured a preference for instruction that comes from a singular source. Four items measured a preference for online instruction centered on instruction taking place between the individual student and instructor.

Factor analysis was conducted on the 12 abso-luteness items using principal axis factoring with Varimax rotation. Inspection of the scree plot and eiganvalues identified a two-factor solution as the best fit. This two-factor model accounted for 41.10% of variance and fit well with the conceptual base from which the items were created. Four items loaded on the “absolute knowledge” subscale, and reflect a desire for nonambiguous and factual information. Twelve items loaded on the “absolute perspec-tive” subscale, reflecting a preference for instructor as the singular source of knowledge. Four of these items regarding instruction in general, and four are specific to online environments. Items and factor loadings are presented in the Appendix. Reliability for the entire set of 12 items was calculated as = .75 (Chronbach’s alpha). Chronbach’s alpha was = .69 for the four-item “absolute knowledge” subscale, and = .71 for the eight-item “absolute perspective” subscale.

Grade level was found to predict scale scores. Figure 1 presents mean scores by grade level for the overall absoluteness preference scale and both subscales. Significant negative correlations were found such that earlier grade level predicted higher levels of absoluteness on the overall scale (r = -.486), on the absolute knowledge subscale (r = -.462) and on the absolute perspective subscale (r = -.366).

To further explore the relationship between grade level and absoluteness scores, a dichoto-mous variable representing lower versus upper-class level was created, with freshman and sophomores included in the lower-class level group (n = 87), and juniors, seniors, and graduate students in the upper-class level group (n = 87). A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of grade on overall absolute instruction scores F(1, 172) = 43.424, p < .001, with scores of the freshman/sophomore group significantly lower than the upper-level group. The calculated Cohen’s d = .999, and r = .447 represents a large effect size. Comparable findings were seen calculating subscales independently. Absolute knowledge scores were significantly higher among the freshman/sophomore group than upper-level students, F(1, 172) = 33.98, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .884, r = .404. Absolute perspective scores were also significantly higher among the freshman/sophomore group, F(1, 172) = 24.09, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .744, r = .349.

Findings demonstrate significant and predicted differences across grade level in student pref-erences for absolute instruction and the degree that class discussion flows from instructor-to-student. A consistent trend was found whereby students of earlier grade levels indicated higher degrees of preference for (a) absolute knowledge that is factual and unambiguous, and (b) absolute perspective, with the learning process being singularly controlled and orchestrated by the instructor. Upper level students showed an increased tolerance for instructional strategies that allow for a relative nature of knowledge and allow learning to take place between peers rather than being directed from the instructor. Compared with these upper-level students, freshman and sophomore students were more likely to believe that most questions have one right answer, that a good instructor held that answer, and that online course discussions should consist of the instructor passing knowledge directly to the individual student.

We believe these findings hold implications for design of instruction in that they suggest that students of varied class status will differ in responding to instructional strategies and dis-cussion formats. For example, Web-based assignments that rely on group collaboration to solve ill-defined problems may work well with upper-level and graduate students, but may lead to frustration and have limited effectiveness with freshman and sophomores. Likewise, relying on peer-based learning to take place in online discussions may be especially challenging and/or require greater scaffolding with younger students who see the instructor as the possessor of knowledge. Attention to this aspect of student development as a factor in instructional design has received insufficient attention yet may have profound implications for courseware design and strategy selection.

The literature on e-learning reflects an interesting and sometimes inconsistent message regarding the relationship between constructivist goals and pragmatic necessities. As an example, two chapters in the latest edition of McKeachie’s (2002) popular teaching tips book focus on distance learning. In one, Zhu and Kaplan (2002) discuss the potential of technology to “provide greater opportunities to experience learning activities that are internally driven and constructed, ... collaborative and socially negotiated” (p. 205), yet later rec-ommend to “provide detailed instructions for the students, including student roles and responsibilities” (p. 219). In a later chapter on distance education, Northedge (2002) discusses how to “launch a flow of shared meaning, jointly generated by teacher and students” (p. 264), then concludes the chapter with the tip to “keep it simple and direct” (p. 267). So, where putting students in control is part of the beauty of electronic classrooms, it must be weighed within the reality of creating sufficient structure and guidance.

We do not mean to imply that the goal of sound instruction is simply to satisfy student preferences, but that the student distress should be by design and toward specific learning objectives. As discussed by Hunt (1971), some degree of “person-environment disparity” is necessary in instructional models aiming for long-term developmental change, while little disparity lends itself to goals of immediate performance and student satisfaction (p. 10). In online courses, possible instructional tactics to increase structure while promoting reflective growth include instructor summaries and critiques of student discussion student postings (rather than replying individually), and assigning roles and duties to students (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000). In one of few articles directly addressing supporting epistemological development in online courses, Marra (2002) discusses the potential of specialized software tools to provide scaffolding and challenge learners with low-level epistemic beliefs. So, while we do not intend to suggest that lower level undergraduates are incapable of learning from collaboration and shared knowledge construction among peers, we cannot assume that students will all be equally receptive to or benefited by instruction of this type without adequate support. As concluded by Ellis and Calvo (2006) in their study of undergraduate participation in online discussions, “we should avoid assuming students know how to extract the value from online dis-cussions” (p. 67). We believe that literature on college epistemological development and our findings suggest a simple heuristic that might be useful: students in lower level courses will tend to expect direct information and from a single source. Recognition of this preference for absolute instruction will be useful in planning learning environments that avoid the type of student distress that hinders learning.

Findings in this pilot investigation are limited due to the sample. Participants all attended a large state university in the Midwest United States, and education students and females were overrepresented in the sample. We did not attempt to collect data on which students had taken an online course prior to the study. The scale used is still exploratory and could benefit from further development and testing. In our analysis, positively and negative worded items loaded onto separate factors with one exception. The possibility has been raised that positively and negatively worded items representing a unidimensional construct can lead to separate factors (Marsh, 1996). If that were true, both of our two subscales could be measuring the same construct. Finally, because this is cross-sectional study, data from individuals across time would be needed to demonstrate that the measured preference for absoluteness instruction is developmental in nature.

Given these study limitations, results seem promising and provide direction for future research that could serve useful for design of instructional environments and activities that best match the developing epistemological beliefs and expectations of college students. Future research might also seek to examine student distance learning performance and atti-tudes in through a meta-analysis with grade level as the variable of interest.

In conclusion, this article addresses college student development as one aspect of learner analysis that may serve useful in the quest for optimization of online instruction. Our prelim-inary findings suggest that lower-level under-graduates prefer and expect a more direct instructional style than upper-level students. This preference is likely to manifest in reactions to a strong desire for clear direction on what is expected, clarity on which of multiple perspectives is the “correct” one, and a model that places the instructor at the hub of content-related discussions. This finding of a gradual move away from a dualistic perspective of knowledge supports previous findings from several previous authors and frameworks (Hofer, 2001). But we consider a unique con-tribution of the study to be its demonstration that epistemic beliefs can help explain and predict student reactions to online discussions. Students in earlier grade levels prefer online discussion to take place between themselves and the instructor, and tend to see little value in reading and answering messages posted by peers. Recognizing this tendency should not serve to diminish a student-centered approach to online teaching, but may help to avoid frustrations both students who sometimes find themselves lost in a cyberspace class, and instructors who are disappointed that their vision of collaborative e-learning is not being met.

Rotated Factor Matrix for Preference for the Scale of Absolute Instruction (Principal Axis Factoring With Varimax Rotation)