Course-level implementation of First Principles, goal orientations, and cognitive engagement: a multilevel mediation model

The First Principles of Instruction (FPI) represent ideologies found in most instructional design theories and models. Few attempts, however, have been made to empirically test the relationship of these FPI to instructional outcomes. This study addresses whether the degree to which FPI are implemented in courses makes a difference to student cognitive engagement, taking into account the mediating role of individual goals. A multilevel meditation model was tested with 1070 undergraduate students from 29 courses in a Korean university. Findings demonstrated that the influences of course-level implementation of FPI influence cognitive engagement through individual intrinsic goal orientation. Course-level implementation of FP does not directly affect surface strategy use and self-regulated strategy use; rather, the effect of FPI appears to be mediated by intrinsic goal orientations. Course-level implementation of FPI also appears to affect deep cognitive strategy use directly as well as indirectly through intrinsic goal orientation. The present study added novel evidence linking Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction to cognitive engagement.

[1]  Paul R. Pintrich,et al.  Classroom and Individual Differences in Early Adolescents' Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning , 1994 .

[2]  Tiffany A. Koszalka,et al.  Examining Learning Environmental Design Issues for Prompting Reflective Thinking in Web-Enhanced PBL. , 2001 .

[3]  J. Meece,et al.  Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities , 1988 .

[4]  Henk G. Schmidt,et al.  Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom , 2011, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[5]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Toni M. Kempler,et al.  Current issues in achievement goal theory and research , 2003 .

[7]  Teresa K. Debacker,et al.  Influences on cognitive engagement: epistemological beliefs and need for closure. , 2006, The British journal of educational psychology.

[8]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[9]  Alison H. Paris,et al.  Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning , 2001 .

[10]  Brian P. Coppola,et al.  Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry , 2003 .

[11]  Sudhir Mehta,et al.  Higher Education Research & Development , 2022 .

[12]  Eva Kyndt,et al.  The direct and indirect effect of motivation for learning on students' approaches to learning through the perceptions of workload and task complexity , 2011 .

[13]  N. Zepke.  Student engagement research in higher education: questioning an academic orthodoxy , 2014 .

[14]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations , 2011 .

[15]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[16]  Barbara A. Greene,et al.  Influences on achievement : Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement , 1996 .

[17]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Testing Multilevel Mediation Using Hierarchical Linear Models , 2008 .

[18]  Andrew J. Elliot,et al.  Perceptions of Classroom Environment, Achievement Goals, and Achievement Outcomes. , 2001 .

[19]  C. Wolters.  Advancing Achievement Goal Theory: Using Goal Structures and Goal Orientations to Predict Students' Motivation, Cognition, and Achievement. , 2004 .

[20]  Mien Segers,et al.  The extent of variability in learning strategies and students' perceptions of the learning environment , 2008 .

[21]  Mien Segers,et al.  The interplay of perceptions of the learning environment, personality and learning strategies: a study amongst International Business Studies students , 2007 .

[22]  Jan D. Vermunt,et al.  Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures , 2002 .

[23]  Jennifer A. Lyke,et al.  Cognition in Context: Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Goal Structures and Reported Cognitive Strategy Use in the College Classroom , 2006 .

[24]  E. Deci,et al.  Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. , 2010 .

[25]  Theodore W. Frick,et al.  Theory-based course evaluation: Implications for improving student success in postsecondary education , 2008 .

[26]  M. David Merrill,et al.  First principles of instruction , 2012 .

[27]  J. Meece,et al.  Relations of learner-centered teaching practices to adolescents’ achievement goals , 2003 .

[28]  E. Mandinach,et al.  The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation , 1983 .

[29]  Theodore W. Frick,et al.  Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education , 2010 .

[30]  Joop J. Hox,et al.  Applied Multilevel Analysis. , 1995 .

[31]  P. Pintrich.  A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students , 2004 .

[32]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  M. G. Eley,et al.  Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students , 1992 .

[34]  Cindy Ives,et al.  Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume III: Building a Common Knowledge Base (Book Review) , 2010, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[35]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. , 1992 .

[36]  Y. Nie,et al.  Differential Relations of Constructivist and Didactic Instruction to Students' Cognition, Motivation, and Achievement. , 2010 .

[37]  Michael Prosser,et al.  Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes , 1991 .

[38]  C. Mariné,et al.  Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Goal Orientation, Cognitive Engagement, and Achievement: A Test of Dweck's Model with Returning to School Adults. , 2005 .

[39]  P. Pintrich.  A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). , 1991 .

[40]  Joanne P. H. Bentley,et al.  How Well Do High-Quality Online Courses Employ Merrill's First Principles of Instruction? , 2009 .

[41]  Joel Gardner,et al.  Testing the Efficacy of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction in Improving Student Performance in Introductory Biology Courses , 2011 .

[42]  Paul R. Pintrich,et al.  Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms , 1998 .

[43]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Multilevel Modeling of Individual and Group Level Mediated Effects , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.

[44]  Mien Segers,et al.  Influence of Redesigning a Learning Environment on Student Perceptions and Learning Strategies , 2005 .

[45]  Hyun-Mi Chung,et al.  "Design and Effectiveness of the Face-to-Face Instruction Applying Merrill's First Principles of Instruction" , 2013 .

[46]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model , 2002 .

[47]  Barbara A. Greene,et al.  Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement , 2006 .

[48]  M. David Merrill.  Why Basic Principles of Instruction Must Be Present in the Learning Landscape, Whatever Form It Takes, for Learning to Be Effective, Efficient and Engaging , 2008 .

[49]  Carole A. Ames.  Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. , 1992 .

[50]  Ying Wang,et al.  College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality , 2009 .

[51]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. , 1990 .

[52]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[53]  Keithia Wilson *,et al.  Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs , 2005 .