effects of constructivist learning environments || constructivist learning environments and the...
TRANSCRIPT
Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptionsof assessment demands and approaches to learningAuthor(s): David Gijbels, Mien Segers and Elke StruyfSource: Instructional Science, Vol. 36, No. 5/6, Effects of Constructivist LearningEnvironments (SEPTEMBER 2008), pp. 431-443Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23372649 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 13:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Instructional Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Instr Sei (2008) 36:431-443 DOI 10.1007/sl 1251-008-9064-7
Constructivist learning environments and the
(im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning
David Gijbels • Mien Segers • Elke Struyf
Published online: 19 August 2008 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract Recent research shows that, as students interpret the demands of the assessment
tasks, they vary their approaches to learning in order to cope with the assessment tasks.
Three research questions are central in the present paper: (1) Do students who participate in
a constructivist learning environment change their perception of assessment demands
towards more deep level demands? (2) Do students in a constructivist learning environ
ment change their approaches to learning towards a more deep approach to learning? (3) Is
there a relation between change in approaches to learning and change in the perceptions of
the assessment demands? Students following the course 'Education and psychology' of the
teacher training program at the University of Antwerp completed questionnaires during the
first, the second and the final lesson of the course. One questionnaire measured their
approaches to learning and the other their general perceptions of the assessment demands.
The course 'Education and psychology' can be labelled as a 'constructivist learning environment' with congruent assessment methods. Results of the paired sampled t-tests
indicated that students indeed do change their perceptions of assessment demands towards
more deep level demands. However, the results also indicated that students did not change their approach to learning towards a more deep approach. On the contrary, students seem to
develop more surface approaches to learning during the course. Correlation analyses indicated that only changes of perceptions of assessment demands towards less surface
levels are significantly related to changes in approaches to learning, towards a more surface
approach. Results of the stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated that students'
approach to learning at the beginning of the course seems to have a higher impact on the
D. Gijbels (El) • E. Struyf Institute for Education and Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]
M. Segers Department of Educational Sciences, University of Leiden, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
M. Segers Department of Educational Research and Development, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
432 D. Gijbels et al.
extent to which they change their approach to learning than how students perceive the
demands of the assessment within the course. These results point us to the complexity of
the relationship between the learning environment, the students' perceptions of assessment
demands, and students' approaches to learning.
Keywords Constructivism ■ Assessment demands ■ Approaches to learning
•
Perceptions
An important challenge for today's higher education remains the development and
implementation of teaching practices that will foster in students the skill to acquire and
apply their knowledge efficiently, think critically, analyse, synthesise, and make inferences
(Tynjälä 2008). It is said that students should adopt more deep approaches to learning in
order to achieve these goals. Overall, it is claimed that 'new' learning environments have
the potential to improve these educational outcomes for students in higher education by
making the students' learning the core issue and defining instruction as enhancing learning
(Dart 1997; Lea et al. 2003). The concept of the deep approach to learning is associated
with searching for meaning in the task and integration of task aspects into a whole. This
kind of learning is driven by an intrinsic motivation to seek meaning and understanding.
The concept of surface approach to learning refers to students that learn by memorizing
and reproducing the factual contents of the study materials without seeking for further
connections, meaning, or the implications of what is learned. This approach is driven by an
extrinsic motivation to gain a paper qualification or a reward (Biggs 1987; Marton and
Säljö 1976). Marton and Säljö (1976) assumed that learning approaches are not stable psychological
traits and that students adjust their approaches to learning, depending on the requirements
of the task. Although, as Biggs (1993) suggests, students might have a predisposition to
either deep or surface learning approaches in general, research has indeed shown that this
preferred approach can be modified by the learning environment for individual courses or
for particular tasks (Ramsden 1984). There is a general consensus that one of the most
salient contextual variables that influence students' approaches to learning is the assess
ment method (Crooks and Mahalski 1985; Ramsden 1992; Scouller and Prosser 1994;
Thomas and Bain 1984). Students can shift between surface and deep approaches to suit
the assessment demands of their courses (Newble and Jaeger 1983; Ramsden 1979;
Thomas and Bain 1984; Wilson and Fowler 2005). It appears that although students have a
preferred approach to learning and enter a course with specific intentions of applying their
preferred approaches to learning, they vary their approach according to their perceptions of
the assessment demands. As students interpret the demands of the assessment tasks they
consciously or subconsciously vary their approaches to learning in order to cope with the
assessment tasks. This is often referred to as the backwash-effect of assessment (Segers
et al. 2006). If a particular assessment is perceived to require just passive acquisition and
accurate reproduction of details students will employ a surface approach to learning with
low-level cognitive strategies such as rote learning and concentrating on facts and details
while preparing for the assessment. When assessment is perceived to require high-level
cognitive processing to demonstrate a thorough understanding, integration and application
of the context knowledge, then students are more likely to engage a deep approach to
learning in order to accomplish the task.
â Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Constructivist learning environments 433
Prior research on the relation between perceptions of assessment demands
and approaches to learning
Up till now, only a few studies have presented empirical evidence for the relation between
students' perceptions of assessment demands and their approaches to learning (e.g., Tang
1994; Scouller 1996; Segers et al 2006). A case in point is the study by Tang (1994). She
conducted a study in the Physiotherapy Section at the Hong Kong Polytechnic, in the
subject of Integrated Professional Studies with first-year students (N = 158). The assess
ment of this subject has traditionally been by written tests consisting of short essay
questions (test condition). In order to steer students' learning towards higher level cog nitive preparation strategies, course assignments have been introduced (assignment
condition). Students' approaches to learning at the beginning of the academic year were
measured by the Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs 1987). Additionally, after each
assignment, the task-specific Assessment Preparation Strategies Questionnaire (Tang 1994)
was administered. A qualitative study consisted of interviews of 39 randomly selected
students from the sample. The aim was to explore their perceptions of the assessment
demands and effects on the adoption of preparation strategies. Path analysis for the test
condition demonstrated congruence between the students' approaches to learning and their
assessment preparation strategies. "Those students who were surface-oriented were more
likely to employ low-level strategies when studying for the test, while those who were
normally deep-oriented had a higher tendency to employ high-level preparation strategies
"(Tang 1994, p. 6). The interviews indicated that deep-oriented students were not disad
vantaged in this condition of assessment as they adapted to the perceived low-level
demands of the test and orchestrated their approach to learning by adopting surface
learning strategies with 'deep intentions' in order to succeed for the test. The patterns of
relationships for the assignment condition were different from that of the test condition.
There was a relative lack of relationship between the students' approaches to learning at
the beginning of the year and the subsequent adoption of preparation strategies in writing
assignments. Tang (1994) suggests that writing assignments is a new experience for most
of these first-year students and therefore they cannot readily rely on their approaches to
learning they usually make use of when handling a task ('habitual'approaches to learning). "Under such circumstances, their motives, whether extrinsic, intrinsic or achieving, become a more relevant reference for the decision for the actual strategies to be employed"
(Tang 1994, p. 8). The results of the interviews demonstrated that high-level strategies such
as understanding, application of information, relating to other subjects, and previous
knowledge are requirements perceived to be necessary for both assessment conditions.
However, low-level strategies such as rote learning, memorisation, and reproduction were
perceived to be relevant only to the test condition.
The study of Scouller (1996) was related to Tang's study as it focussed on students'
approaches to learning related to the mode of assessment implemented. Scouller (1996)
investigated through questionnaires students' approaches to learning (classified as either
deep or surface) and their perceptions of the intellectual abilities or skills being assessed (classified as lower or higher) within two assessment contexts of the same
course: An assignment essay and an end-of-course short answer examination. The
sample consisted of 140 first-year Sociology students at the University of Sydney. The
main findings reveal that the assessment method strongly influenced the way these
students learned and prepared their assessment tasks. The patterns that emerged were
much more straightforward than those in the study of Tang (1994). The Sociology students were much more likely to employ surface approaches to learning when
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
434 D. Gijbels et al.
preparing for their short answer examinations than when preparing their assignment
essays. In contrast, when writing their assignment essays these students were signifi
cantly more likely to employ deep approaches to learning than when preparing for their
short answer examinations. Finally, these students were significantly more likely to
perceive the short answer examination as assessing lower levels of intellectual abilities
and skills than the assignment essay. In contrast, students were more likely to perceive
the assignment essay as assessing higher levels of intellectual abilities and skills such
as analysis and synthesis than their short answer examination. Probably—in any case
more than the Hong Kong students in the study of Tang (1994)—we assume that these
students have prior experiences with different modes of assessment, including assign
ments and therefore can rely on habitual strategies to handle the assignments and thus
to be strategic in their approach to learning.
A recent study of Segers et al. (2006) further explored the conditions for assessment
to steer learning within a second year 'international business strategy' course at the
University of Maastricht in The Netherlands, by investigating the impact of the imple
mentation of an OverAll Test. An OverAll Test is case-based and intends to measure the
extent to which students are able to use knowledge (models, theories) to define, analyse,
and solve authentic problems. More than in the aforementioned studies, explicit attention
is paid to the alignment of learning, instruction, and assessment. In the course under
study, the OverAll Test was implemented as an integral part of a redesigned learning
environment. The main differences between the original and the redesigned learning
environment are the format of the learning tasks (study tasks in the original course and
problem tasks in the redesigned course) and the mode of assessment (a knowledge
reproduction test in the original course and a combination of a knowledge reproduction
test and an OverAll test in the redesigned course). In order to unravel the mechanism
through which assessment steers learning, two variables, indicated as relevant in the
aforementioned studies, were taken into account: Students' intended approaches to
learning as an indicator for their general approaches to learning at the beginning of the
course (Tang 1994) and their perceptions of the assessment demands, (Tang 1994;
Scouller 1996). Two questions were central: (1) When comparing the original assign
ment-based course (N = 406 students) and the redesigned problem-based learning
environment (N = 312 students), is there a change in the students' intended approaches
to learning, their perceptions of the assessment demands and their actual approaches to
learning at the end of the course?; (2) What is the association between these three
variables in both conditions, the original and the redesigned learning environment? To
measure students' perceptions of the assessment demands the Scouller Perceptions of the
Assessment Demands Questionnaire (Scouller and Prosser 1994) was used. Students'
intended and actual approaches to learning were measured with the Study Process
Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs 1987). The results indicated that, in contradiction with the
expectations, the students in the original course actually adopted more deep approaches
to learning and less surface approaches to learning than the students in the redesigned
course. Although the students were informed about the differences in the various course
information resources, there were no significant differences between both groups of
students in the approaches to learning they intended to employ as well as in their
perceptions of the assessment demands. The study concludes that more research, also in
other contexts, is needed to study and understand the complex relation between the
students' perceptions of the demands of new modes of assessment and their intended and
actual approaches to learning.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Constructivist learning environments 435
The present study
The present study intends to build on the findings of the studies mentioned above. It starts
from the perspective that student learning approaches are adaptable to change. The
research presented focuses on students' change in learning approaches and in perceptions of the assessment demands when they enter a constructivist learning environment. It
questions how change in learning approaches is related to their initial approaches to
learning, their perceptions of assessment demands as they enter a course (general per
ceptions), and their perceptions of the assessment demands when confronted with new
modes of assessment implemented in the course. The study is conducted in a university teacher training course where a constructivist learning environment is implemented.
Three research questions guide the present study:
1) Do students who participate in a constructivist learning environment change their
perception of assessment demands towards more deep level demands?
2) Do students in a constructivist learning environment change their approaches to
learning towards a more deep approach to learning?
3) To what extent are students' changes in approaches to learning related to students'
change in the perceptions of the assessment demands?
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were the students following the course 'Education and
psychology' of the teacher training programme at the University of Antwerp, Flanders,
Belgium. The research instruments were administered to the students during the first
(initial approaches to learning, n = 197), the second (perceptions of assessment demands, n = 160) and the final lesson (actual approaches to learning and perceptions of assessment
demands, n = 180) of the course. As the study investigates the development of approaches to learning and perceptions of assessment demands, only students who participated on each
of the measurements were included in the data analysis. A total of 67 students completed all instruments or filled in a readable student ID number, on the basis of which the different
instruments could be matched. Of these students 67.1% were female and 32.9% were male
students. The course was also available as an in-service course; 73.1% were regular pre service students, 26.9 % were in-service students (already working). The mean age of the
students was 24 (SD = 6.65).
The education and psychology course
The research was carried out within the context of a compulsory course 'Education and
psychology (3 ECTS, 7 weeks). This course in the university teacher training programme can be labelled as a 'constructivist learning environment'. We see constructivism as an
umbrella term that groups learning perspectives with the same basic assumption about
learning: Namely the understanding that knowledge is actively constructed by the learner
(Birenbaum 2003; Harris and Alexander 1998; Tynjälä 1999). The 'Educational and
psychology' course can be labelled as a student-centred 'constructivist' learning envi
ronment in which a blend of active learning and congruent assessment environments is
Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
436 D. Gijbels et al.
created for the students: Guided self-study, activating lectures, two authentic group
assignments, and two individual assignments. The 7 weeks of the course were designed as
follows: Before the first session, the students were asked to study the open learning
material by themselves. During the first (plenary) session, the teacher presented some cases
and discussed possible solutions with the students, based on the theory described in the
open-learning material. During that first lesson a small lecture was given on how to create
active learning materials for students in secondary education. Near the end of the first
session, the students were divided in groups of 5 or 6 students and were given two
authentic group assignments (-1- prepare a lesson for your peers on a given topic related to
the psychology of adolescents and -2- design 4 subsequent 'lessons' for students in sec
ondary education making use of active learning materials) on which they could work
during sessions 2 and 3. The teacher was available for feedback during these sessions.
Session 6 was used for a guest-lecture about how to deal with difficulties in the classroom.
Sessions 4, 5 and 7 were used to actually 'give' the lessons they prepared (peer-to-peer
teaching). Teacher-feedback and peer-feedback was given on the peer-to-peer teachings
during these lessons.
The assessment during this course was designed to be in alignment with the instruc
tional goals and approach. This implies the students were assessed by means of the 2
authentic group assignments, an individual observation assignment, and an individual self
reflection assignment. The two authentic group assignments were exactly these two
assignments mentioned above students have been working on during the course in sessions
2 and 3. They were assessed based on the written preparation of the lesson they had given
themselves (students had the opportunity to rework these preparations after they had given
the lesson) and on the written preparation for the 4 subsequent lessons for students in
secondary education, making use of active learning materials. In the individual observation
assignment students had to write an observation report about the lessons they observed
from their peers in sessions 4, 5 and 7. In the individual self-reflection assignment, the
students needed to reflect critically about what they had learned personally from working
in a group of 5 or 6 students on the 4 subsequent lessons-group assignment. Students had to
hand in all assignments 3 weeks after the final session.
Of further importance is that the teacher training program at the university in Flanders
can only be started after the student reached the bachelor degree in his or her discipline.
Furthermore, students can only graduate in the program after they graduate as a master in
their initial discipline (e.g., law, science, economics, ...). Given the teacher-centred nature
of the courses at the university in which this study took place (see e.g., Stes et al. 2008), we
assume that for most students, the highly constructivist, student-centred teaching approach
in the teacher training programme was a new experience.
Research instruments
The R-SPQ-2F is a refined version of Biggs' (1987) original Study Process Questionnaire
(SPQ). In the theoretical framework of the SPQ, three approaches to learning (surface,
deep, and achieving) are proposed, each with a motive and strategy subscale. Kember and
Leung (1998) conducted a study with over 7000 Hong Kong students which investigated
the construct and internal reliability of the SPQ. The results indicated that a model with
two factors had the best fit. Other studies, including cross-cultural research, have also
shown that a two factor solution with a deep and a surface approach, rather than the initial
three factor solution, accounted for most of the variance (Snelgrove and Slater 2003;
Watkins and Regmi 1996; Zhang 2000). Biggs et al. (2001) accordingly refined the SPQ.
•£) Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Constructivist learning environments 437
Table 1 Item examples and reliabilities of used R-SPQ-2F and ADQ-scales
Scale Item example Condition Cronbach's
alpha
Deep approach I related material, as I was reading it, to what I Pre-test .652
already knew on that topic Post-test .802
Surface approach I learned some things by rote, going over Pre-test .740 them until I knew them by heart Post-test .760
Assessment of deep I expect the test to assess my ability to Pre-test .590
learning levels integrate from a variety of resources Post-test .741
Assessment of surface I expect the test to assess my ability Pre-test .789
learning levels to reproduce key terms and definitions Post-test .841
The revised two factor SPQ is scored on a five-point Likert scale and categorizes students
into two different types of approaches to learning. These are 'surface learning approaches'
(referring to students' intentions to learn by memorizing and reproducing the factual
contents of the study materials) and 'deep learning approaches' (associated with students'
intentions to understand and construct the meaning of the content to be learned). An
example of an item for both scales is presented in Table 1.
The ADQ is developed and validated in higher education by Scouller and Prosser
(1994). The reliability of its scales is confirmed in other studies (e.g., Segers et al. 2006). It contains twelve questions on a five-point Likert scale. Two scales result from this ques tionnaire: One for low-level surface skills and one for high-level deep skills of intellectual
processing. An example of an item for both scales is presented in Table 1.
Procedure
The revised study-process-questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F, Biggs et al. 2001) was used during the first and the final lesson respectively to measure their initial and actual approaches to
learning. The Assessment Demands Questionnaire (ADQ, Scouller and Prosser 1994) was
used during the first and the second lesson respectively to measure students' general
perceptions of the assessment demands and their perceptions of assessment demands for
the present course. Since the teacher explained the method of assessment for the course
during the first lecture, students' perceptions of the assessment demands for the present course were measured during the second lecture.
Results
First, the reliability of the scales used in this study was computed. The reliability for the
different scales based on the pre-test and the post-test, measured by Cronbach's alpha, are
presented in Table 1. The reliability for the different scales was deemed sufficient for the
purpose of this research, although the ADQ-scale 'assessment of deep learning levels'
resulted in a rather low Cronbach's alpha for the pre-test (alpha = .59).
Tables 2 and 3 present the descriptive statistics for the variables measured as well as for
the 'change variables'. The results in Table 2 indicate that, when entering the course,
students adopt more a deep than a surface approach. Also at the end of the course, students
adopt more deep than surface approaches. In general, they perceive the assessment
â Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
438 D. Gijbels et al.
Table 2 Results of the paired samples t-tests for students' preferences of assessment demands and
approaches to learning
Variable Condition Mean SD t df P
1. Deep approach to learning Pre-test 2.79 .62 -.01 66 .992
Post-test 2.79 .58
2. Surface approach to learning Pre-test 2.24 .51 -1.93 66 .057
Post-test 2.38 .57
3. Assessment of deep learning levels Pre-test 3.25 .61 6.36 66 .000
Post-test 3.88 .61
4. Assessment of surface learning levels Pre-test 3.69 .56 8.839 66 .000
Post-test 2.73 .79
Table 3 Means, Standard deviations, and correlation matrix for differences between post-test and pre-test
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Change deep learning approach .01 .53 1 -.259* .000 -.153
2. Change surface learning approach .14 .60 1 -.151 .256*
3. Change perceptions deep assessment demands .62 .80 1 -.231
4. Change perceptions surface assessment demands -.96 .88 I
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level
demands as more surface than deep. However, for the course Education and psychology,
they perceive the assessment demands as more deep than surface.
On average, the change in deep learning approaches is close to zero (see also Table 3),
although there are differences between students (SD = .53). The change in surface
approaches to learning is more clear, although also here students seem to differ in the extent
of change (SD = .60). With respect to students' perceptions of the assessment demands,
there is a change towards the perception of less surface and more deep assessment demands.
Also here there are differences between the students which are relatively high (as indicated
by the standard deviation of respectively .80 for change in perception of deep assessment
demands and .88 for change in perceptions of surface assessment demands).
To assess whether the changes in learning approaches and perceptions of assessment
demands were significant, paired sample t-tests were used.
The results (see Table 2) of the paired sampled t-tests partly meet the expectations:
They indicate that students indeed do change their perceptions of assessment demands
towards more deep level demands and less surface level demands. However the results also
indicated that students did not change their approach to learning towards a more deep
approach. On the contrary, students seem to develop more surface approaches to learning
during the course (p < .10).
In order to gain insight into the relations between the variables discerned, a correlation
analysis was conducted. The Pearson correlation coefficients in Table 3 indicated that, as
expected, changes in deep approaches are negatively correlated to changes in surface
approaches to learning (r = —259,/? < .05). Moreover, the change in students perceptions
of surface assessment demands was significantly correlated to students' changes in
approaches to learning (r = .256, p < .05). Knowing that the change in students' per
ceptions of surface assessment demands was a negative one, this indicates that the more
Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Constructivist learning environments 439
Table 4 Regression analyses with dependent variables change in deep learning approach and change in surface learning approach
Beta T
Change in deep learning approach
Initial deep learning approach —.544 —5.288 .000
R = .544, R2 = .296, F(1.66) = 27.333, p = .000
Change in surface learning approach
Initial surface learning approach —.468 —4.418 .000
Change perceptions surface assessment demands .229 2.158 .035
R = .533, R2 = .284, F(2.66) = 12.682, p = .000
students perceive the assessment as an assessment demanding less surface learning, the
more students seem to develop surface approaches to learning. In order to better understand students' change in learning approaches, we conducted
stepwise multiple regression analyses. We analyzed how much variance in students'
change in deep and surface approaches can be explained by their initial learning approa ches and their general perceptions of the assessment demands. The results of the regression
analyses are displayed in Table 4. The results indicate that 29.6% of the variance in
students' (lack of) change in deep learning approach can be explained by students' initial
deep learning approach. Accordingly, students' change in surface learning approaches is
significantly influenced by their initial surface learning approach. The change in surface
learning approach is also influenced by the change in perception of surface assessment
demands. Together they explain 28.4% of the variance in students' change in surface
approaches to learning. It seems, however, that the learning approach students make use of
when entering the course has a higher impact on the extent to which they change their
learning approach, than how they perceive the demands of the assessment within this
course. More specifically, the negative beta coefficients as reported in Table 4 indicate that
the stronger the students' initial learning approach is in terms of deep or surface, the less
students adapt their learning approach.
Conclusions and discussion
In this study we tried to find an answer to three questions with-at first sight- mixed results.
The first question can be answered positively: students indeed do change their perceptions of assessment demands towards a more deep level assessment. This, however, did not
imply that students also changed their approach to learning towards a more deep approach. On the contrary, students seem to develop more surface approaches to learning during the
course. The answer to the second question 'Do students participating in a constructivist
learning environment change their approaches to learning towards a more deep approach?' seems to be clear: no. Finally, the answer to the question how students' changes in
approaches to learning are related to students' change in the perception of the assessment
demands indicates that the more students expect an assessment that assesses less surface
levels, the more they seem to change their approach to learning towards a more surface
approach to learning. Furthermore, to explain students' changes in learning approaches, the
initial learning approaches students use, seem to have a relative strong impact on how they
approach their learning in a specific course, no matter the characteristics of the course.
Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
440 D. Gijbels et al.
Moreover, on average, there is hardly any change in the adoption of a deep learning
approach, although the differences between students seem to be important to consider.
However, there is a clear change towards the adoption of a more surface approach to
learning. Also in this case, there seem to be important differences between students. This
result refers to the debate on the extent of variability of students' learning approaches.
Although strange at first side, our results confirm to some extent the findings of prior research. First, there is the question of how feasible it is to change students' learning
approach towards more deep learning. The findings in the study by Marton and Säljö
(1997) suggest that it is obviously easy to induce a surface approach. Attempting to induce
a deep approach, however, was profoundly more difficult. This is also evidenced in the
Nijhuis et al. (2005), Struyven et al. (2006) studies indicating that attempts to deepen students' approaches to learning did not meet the expectations. It might be questioned to
what extent other elements of the learning environment as indicated in the Entwistle and
Ramsden (1983); Trigwell and Presser (1991); Nijhuis et al (2005) studies mediate the
relation between students' perceptions of the assessment demands and their learning
approaches. The Entwistle and Ramsden study as well as the Trigwell and Presser study
showed that a perceived heavy workload and less freedom in learning were related to a
surface approach. Moreover, they found that perceived good teaching, clear goals, and
more freedom in learning were related to a deep approach. A more recent study of Nijhuis
et al. (2005), evidenced the influence of three elements of the perceived learning envi
ronment on their learning strategies: The clarity of the goals, the appropriateness of the
workload, and the usefulness of the literature. When students perceive these elements as
negative, they are inclined to employ surface learning strategies. The relationship between
a perceived higher study load and the use of deeper approaches to learning has also been
found by Struyven et al. (2006). This study confirmed that the perceived quality of the
learning environment influences students' approaches to learning and that the educational
setting, as experienced by students, holds crucial information which is necessary to
understand students' learning. It might be questioned whether in our study the students
perceived the workload of their course as too high and whether they consequently adopted
more surface approaches to learning? First, as many students have successful experiences
with assessment focussing on low-level cognitive skills in their prior education, being
confronted with assessment demanding higher-order thinking skills might evoke stress in
terms of experiencing a high workload to meet these demands. Second, students had to
perform a lot of self-study activities and were involved in peer-to-peer teaching, all of them
learning activities which were novel to many of the students. For students having studied
for 3 or 4 years in a rather traditional way, this way of teaching can be perceived as not
only causing 'heavy workload' for students, but (despite the efforts of the teacher) also
having unclear goals (the teacher is not telling everything himself). The tight program
schedule where the self-study and teaching activities had to be performed in a short period
of time with strict deadlines could induce less freedom in learning.
Second, there is the issue of differences between students in the variability of their
learning approaches. The results of a study of Nijhuis et al. (2008) revealed that two groups
of students can be discerned with respect to the variability of learning approaches: A
restricted one and a variable one. The restricted group was characterized by low variability
in deep as well as surface learning; the variable group had high variability in deep as well
as surface learning. Our results suggest that students indeed differ in the extent of change
in approaches as well as perceptions. For future research, it would be interesting to explore
if the clustering of students in different groups of students with respect to the variability in
learning approaches as resulted from the Nijhuis et al. study (2008) can be confirmed.
Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Constructivist learning environments 441
Finally, some remarks should be made which would suggest that the conclusions of this
study should not be 'overstated' until the findings are repeatedly found, with more stringent
safeguards against other confounding factors. First, the relatively small match (/V = 67)
between students having completed both the pre- and post-test for the different research
instruments could be a problem. Since the sample of students in both the pre- and post-test conditions consisted of students who were attending the lesson in which the questionnaires were administered, the difference in number between the post-test and the pre-test is not
surprising. Near the end of a course and closer to the summative examination, it is not
unusual that fewer students attend the courses. In addition, the readability of the ID
numbers, on the basis of which the different questionnaires (pre- and post) were matched,
caused problems in a few cases. Second, this study has been conducted in the specific context of one course in a university teaching training program. Subsequent studies in
different contexts might indicate whether the results of this study can be generalized to
other contexts. Third, although the results of the survey study indicate statistical rela
tionships between initial approaches to learning and changes in approaches to learning, the
argumentation that students use in weighing the various pro's and con's for the adoption and adaptation of a specific approach to learning remain unclear. A qualitative approach
using interviews with students might help ascertain the argumentation in the decision
making process. Fourth, we have chosen to use questionnaires as the instrument for
determining factors influencing learning approaches. Although these questionnaires have
been validated in higher educational settings and are therefore reliable measures, they are
self-reports. As research on self-assessment suggests the prevalence of over- and under
rating (Ross 1998), the reliability of self-reports can be problematic. In our study,
especially the reliability in the pre-test for the assessment of deep learning levels scale was
not so high (.590). Thus, a multi-method approach to measuring learning approaches may be preferable. Such multi-methods may include the use of the thinking-aloud during stu
dent teacher reflection concerning progress on a learning task and also the observation of
student teachers while working on a learning task. Finally, in this study, the course took
only 7 weeks. It might be questioned if this period is not too short to expect changes towards a more deep approach to learning. The reasoning of Curry (2000), that learning
concepts closest to the learning environment are the most likely to be sensitive to change,
might explain the change in perceptions and not in learning approaches. The dissonance in
students' perceptions and approaches can be interpreted as an indicator for this sleeper effect: Students probably need time to get used to the new approach and to adapt both their
perceptions and study approaches. In order to measure sleeper effects, future research
needs longitudinal designs, measuring change in perceptions of the assessment demands,
and of students' approaches to learning. To conclude, the results of this study point to us the complexity of the relationship
between the learning-assessment environment, the students' perceptions of assessment
demands, and students' approaches to learning. Implementing a constructivist learning and
assessment environment does not directly lead to a change students' approaches towards
more deep learning. Our results indicate that the power of (the perceived) assessment to
steer learning is both limited and complex.
References
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Edu cational Research.
ö Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
442 D. Gijbels et al.
Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of student learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R
SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M.
Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search for qualities, standards (pp. 13-36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Crooks, T. J., & Mahalski, P. A. (1985). Relationships among assessment practices, study methods, and
grades obtained. Research and Development in Higher Education, 8, 234-240.
Curry, L. (2000). Individual differences in cognitive style, learning style and instructional preference in medical education. In G. Norman, C. van der Vleuten & D. Newble (Eds.), International handbook of research in medical education (pp. 263-276). London: Kluwer.
Dart, B. (1997). Adult learners' metacognitive behaviour in higher education. In P. Sutherland (Ed.), Adult
learning: A reader (pp. 30-43). London: Kogan Page. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 115-127.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with
confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 68, 395—407.
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D„ & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes toward student-centred
learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 321-334.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II. Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed.).
Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
Newble, D. I., & Jaeger, K. (1983). The effects of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Medical Education, 17, 165-171.
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student
perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environment Research, S(l), 67-93.
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). The extent of variability in learning strategies and students'
perceptions of the learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 2, 121-134.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411—427.
Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The
experience of learning (pp. 144-163). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential
factors. Language Testing, 15, 1-20.
Scouller, K. (1996). July Influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches, perceptions and
preferences: The assignment essay versus the short answer examination. Paper presented at the 1996 HERDSA Conference, Perth, Australia. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from, http://www.herdsa.org.au/ confs/1996/scouller.htm!.
Scouller, K, & Presser, M. (1994). Students' experiences in studying for multiple choice question exam inations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267-279.
Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: The influence on students' perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 223—242.
Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process ques tionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43, 496-505.
Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to learning in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55, 255-267.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students'
approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning & Instruction, 16, 279-294.
Tang, C. (1994). Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation strategies. In G. Gibbs (Ed.),
Improving student learning: Theory and practice (pp. 151-170). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff
Development. Retrieved May 14, 2005, from. http://teaching.polyu.edu.hk/datafiles/R126.pdf.
Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Constructivist learning environments 443
Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessment. Human Learning, 3, 227-240.
Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on
campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275.
Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional
learning environment in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 355-442.
Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, doi:
10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001. Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: a cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. J. Sternberg
& L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspective on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1996). Toward the cross-cultural validation of a Western model of student
approaches to learning. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 547-560.
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to
learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 85-99.
Zhang, L. F. (2000). University students' learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs 3P model. Journal of Psychology, 134, 37-56.
Springer
This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions