Instructional process is a complex phenomenon that can be seen from several points of view. This chapter proposes a dimension-based approach to manage the complexity.
One way to deal with the complexity of the instructional process is to think of the process as having several dimensions. This dimensional approach can be applied to examine a particular aspect of the instructional process. For example, Carbone (2007) developed a typology for describing tasks. She came up with eight dimensions that comprised a task typology, which can be used to characterise tasks (e.g., programming tasks). The dimensions were: routine-novel, closed-open, artificial-authentic, degree of ownership, degree of linkage, degree of reflection, individual-collaborative, and simple-complex. For instance, the routine–novel dimension refers to the novelty of the activity (not the novelty of the content) and the open-closed dimension refers to whether the students have a choice concerning the way the task could be tackled or what sort of product they will produce. These dimensions provide a way of thinking about strengths and limitations of tasks and thus provide teachers a valuable tool that can be used when planning, e.g., programming assignments. Carbone’s task typology provides a tool to analyse one aspect of the instructional process in a detailed manner. However, this particular tool is not useful when discussing other aspects of the instructional process.
The dimensional approach can be applied to gain a better understanding of larger phenomena, too. For example, when a teacher looks at the instructional process as a
whole, students’ view of the instructional process is one dimension, teachers’ view is another, and the content of the course provides a third dimension. Further, the study by Meisalo (1985) introduced six dimensions in a context of science education that can be used, for instance, to analyse pedagogical methods (the dimensions are also represented in a context of Finnish computer science education in the book by Meisalo, Sutinen and Tarhio (2003, p. 51)). The dimensions are: the subject matter that is taught, the nature of the didactic process, the nature of the interface with the computer, the connection to nature (e.g., the level of concreteness, the level of the cognitive process, and the nature of interaction (Figure 6). In the following paragraphs, I have taken some of the previously listed dimensions and some new ones under closer consideration. The new dimensions that I included into this analysis are the instructional entity and the study activity. I will discuss each dimension in detail later.
Figure 6 Six educational dimensions (Meisalo 1985)
The different dimensions of the instructional process can be seen as a multi-dimensional space where all the dimensions are visualised in the same picture. In Figure 7 I have visualised some dimensions that shed light on the instructional process: dimension A stands for students’ point of view, B for teaching organisation, C for content, D for instructional entity, E for level of cognitive process, F for didactic activity, G for level
of concretising, H for study activity and I for interaction (the colour coding will be explained later). The dimension “doughnut” aims at highlighting in a visual form that there are several dimensions simultaneously present in an instructional process. The figure can be used also by highlighting only two or three dimensions at a time, thus viewing sections of the multi-dimensional space.
Figure 7 A “dimension doughnut”
Before I elaborate on each dimension, a few things need to be clarified. First, the description and Figure 7 are simplified abstractions, which cannot fully capture the richness of reality. There could be more than those nine dimensions and each dimension may have more than three categories that are now visualised in Figure 7. Second, the dimensions presented are non-orthogonal, which means that many of them may share aspects with other dimensions in the “doughnut”. The aim here is not to find an orthogonal representation of the dimensions of the instructional process but one that serves as a viable framework in this study’s context. Thus, the chosen dimensions may well contain aspects of other dimensions.
A practical consequence of complex pedagogical reality, which leads to a model with multiple dimensions and categories, which in turn leads to that when doing research on the instructional process there are a vast number of viewpoints to choose from. For instance, one could look at the instructional process from the point of view of a small group of students on a single course studying and learning a particular concept. On the other hand, one might review the instructional process from a curricular point of view.
The selection of dimensions and categories depends on the researcher’s point of view.
The nine dimensions that I have chosen can be divided into three sectors: Actors (rosy background), Goal (blue background) and Means of reaching the goal (yellow background). The sector Actors represents the teaching organisation, and consists of
dimension A Students and dimension B Teachers. The next sector is Goal and consists of the dimensions Content (C), Instructional entity (D), and Level of cognitive process (E). These are the identified components of actors and goal, which set the content for dimensions of Means in several ways. The last and most extensive sector is Means, which consists of the dimensions Didactic activity (F), Level of concretness (G), Study activity (H) and Interaction (I). The common factor of these dimensions is the concrete activity of teaching or studying. Each of these dimensions highlights different aspects that the teachers and the students confront during the actual instructional process:
students as they strive to learn and teachers as they strive to scaffold students’ learning.
The number and the content of the dimensions and the way they are divided into sectors is a subjective issue, which varies according to the use of the framework. The division presented here is customised to fit the needs of this research. It highlights three important aspects of the instructional process: the actors, the goals, and the means teachers and students use to reach their goals.
Actors: the student and the teaching organisation
Dimension A concentrates on the student. This dimension contains categories, such as, single student (A1), group of students (A2), or, for example, all the students’ of the particular university (A3). The student dimension thus highlights the variety of viewpoints that emerge just by varying the number of students that are investigated.
Dimension A does not have a counterpart in Figure 6. It was essential to include this new dimension in this study as the way students perceive the instructional process is one of the three points of view that are discussed in this study.
In the same way dimension B, Teaching organisation contains categories, such as individual teacher (B1), a group or team of teachers that are responsible for certain courses or a larger module (B2) and all teachers and administrative staff of the university as representative of a larger teaching organisation (B3). Therefore, the categories of dimension B offer different viewpoints in the same way as the categories of dimension A. However, dimension B is more complex than dimension A. Due to their profession, teachers are part of a larger educational organisation, which sets ground rules for the teachers (e.g., curricula and strategies). Individual teachers and teams of teachers are often closely connected to different levels of organisation. For example, an individual teacher at a university might be solely responsible for a single course. A team of teachers and assistant teachers could be responsible for a set of courses. A department is responsible for the teaching of a particular major as a part of a degree programme. Faculty as a whole is responsible for teaching within a particular discipline. The board of directors of the university takes responsibility for the entirety of teaching at the university.
At Helsinki University of Technology (TKK), to take a specific example, a teacher together with several assistant teachers is responsible for a CS1 course, which is offered to CS majors as well as minors. The Department of Computer Science and Engineering takes responsibility for education in computer science. It also offers basic education in computer science to all students at the university. The Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences is responsible for producing professionals in computer science and information technology. The board of directors is the highest decision-making body at TKK. Ultimately, it is responsible for the entirety of educational activities at the university. Finally, the Ministry of Education sets guidelines for TKK as a part of the
Finnish higher education, for example, by granting money according to the number of annual graduates.
Dimension B does not have a counterpart in Figure 6. The inclusion of this new dimension was justified because the teachers’ and the teaching organisation’s points of view are two of the three points of view that are discussed in this study.
Goal: content, instructional entity and level of cognitive process
The Goal sector highlights a variety of issues that affect the goal-setting process. Goals refer here to the aims and expected learning outcomes that students and teachers/teaching organisations set for the instructional process. Dimension C, Content, portrays a central aspect of goal setting. Content can be divided, for example, into different subject areas, such as, mathematics (C1), physics (C2) and computer science (C3). Furthermore, each subject area can be divided into smaller content areas. As the analysis reaches yet smaller entities, different content constituents can be seen on a course level. For example, in an introductory computer programming course (CS1), sub-areas could include specific topics, such as basic loop structures, and more general issues, such as the fundamentals of object-oriented programming. Dimension C is similar with the dimension U Subject matter in Figure 6.
Dimension D, Instructional entity, refers to the scale or extent of the object of the instructional process. When discussing studying, one can concentrate on small entities, such as, single concepts (D1), larger entities of knowledge or skills in a course or set of courses (D2), or even curriculum-level entities of knowledge and skills (D3). The extent of the object of study is naturally related to a time scale. For instance, there might be specific short-term goals (D1) that state on a concrete level what the student is expected to be able to do after a single course or lesson. There are also long-term goals (D2) that cannot be reached after a single course, but require years of study.
The role of the instructional entity comes up when teachers are planning the instructional processes. For example, an individual teacher might focus on smaller entities, which are relevant to his/her course. The content and the goals must be aligned with the time reserved for the course. On the other hand, the team of teachers that is responsible for a set of courses needs to focus on larger entities in order to form an effective and coherent whole.
Dimension D does not have a counterpart in Figure 6. This dimension was included into the model to highlight the variation in the extent of the objectives of the instructional process. This variation brings yet more viewpoints to the instructional process.
The last Dimension E in the Goal sector is Level of cognitive processes (dimension E), which can contain processes from remembering and understanding (E1) to creative problem solving (E3). In other words, dimension E deals with the profundity of learners’
cognitive processes. As the teacher sets goals, one of the issues that must be decided upon is the level of cognitive process that is targeted. The dimension of cognitive processes also has a close relationship to context. Different contexts might require different cognitive processes, and some processes are prerequisites for others. For example, in an introductory computer programming course (CS1), the nature of the subject directs the nature of the goals. A strong emphasis on programming skills in addition to conceptual knowledge is one instance of the close relation between the goal of the course and the nature of the subject. Dimension E equates the dimension Z Level of cognitive process in Figure 6.
Means: didactic activity, study activity, interaction and level of concretness
The last sector contains dimensions that describe the different means that the teachers and the students use in order to reach their goals. Didactic activity (dimension F) refers to different ways of teaching. There are many possible pedagogical approaches a teacher can choose from, such as PBL (F1), learning through projects (F2), and lecture based teaching (F3). Dimension F thus highlights the practical pedagogical choices the teacher has when planning and teaching. The different ways of teaching are the teachers’ concrete pedagogical means to scaffold learning. Dimension F equates closely the dimension V the Nature of the didactic process in Figure 6 - there is only a subtle difference in the emphasis. Didactic activity (dimension F) focuses more on the teachers’ actions in choosing the didactic activity whereas Nature of the didactic process (dimension V in Figure 6) focuses more on the nature of the process itself.
Dimension G, the Level of concretising, addresses the level of how closely instruction is connected to real life. The different categories in this dimension reflect the abstraction level of the instructional entity. For example, G1 reflects the instructional event or process that is strongly connected to the concrete experiences and thus the abstraction level is low. G3, on the other hand, represents an instructional event or process that discusses the subject matter on a high abstract level. Dimension G’s counterpart in Figure 6 is dimension Y Connection to nature.
Study activities (dimension H) are the students’ concrete means to study. There is a vast number of ways to study. For instance, a student can decide to read given study material, such as books (H1), do exercises (H2), or discuss the subject area with other students (H3). The combination of study activities that are used in a particular course naturally varies according to the content of the course, instruction, resources, such as, time, and personal preferences. Dimension H does not have a counterpart in the dimensions represented in Figure 6. This new dimension was included into the model to introduce the students’ actions. In a sense dimension H (Study activities) is dimension F’s (Didactic activity) pair. The former highlights students’ activities and the latter teachers’ activities.
Dimension I, Interaction, includes different types of interaction between the student, the teacher and the environment. For instance, instructional processes could emphasise the student-student interaction through small group activities (I1), interactions with the teacher (I2), or interactions with the environment (I3), such as books or e-learning environments. Dimension I equates the Dimension X Human interaction in Figure 6.
The difference is that Dimension I includes interaction with the environment in addition to interaction with people. Dimension X Human interaction in Figure 6 concerns only human interaction.
In summary, dimensions A (Student), B (Teaching organisation), D (Instructional entity), characterise elements that can be discussed in different scales of size of analysis entity: individual – a group of people/organisation, single concept – curriculum.
Dimensions E (Level of cognitive processes) and G (Level of concretness), on the other hand, contain categories that can be put into an order of some kind, such as, less abstract – more abstract. For example, creative problem solving could be valued as more demanding cognitive task than merely being able to remember and repeat. Dimensions C (Content), F (Didactic activity), H (Study activity), and I (Interaction) are not scalable.
In the previous paragraphs, I have described the multi-dimensional nature of the instructional process. Nine dimensions were identified as examples of dimensions that
illuminate the instructional process as a phenomenon. This study aims to identify challenges students and teachers and teaching organisations face during the instructional process. Thus, in this study the dimensions A and B (actors) are in primary focus.
However, since this study has a holistic approach many of the other dimensions, such as didactic activity and study activity are also discussed.