students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: the added value of students’...

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Students’ experiences with contrasting learningenvironments: The added value of students’ perceptions

Katrien Struyven Æ Filip Dochy Æ Steven Janssens Æ Sarah Gielen

Received: 19 July 2006 / Accepted: 23 March 2007 / Published online: 6 May 2008� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This study investigated the effects of two contrasting learning environments on

students’ course experiences: a lecture-based setting to a student-activating teaching

environment. In addition, the evaluative treatment involved five research conditions that

went together with one of four assessment modes, namely, portfolio, case-based, peer

assessment, and multiple-choice testing. Data (N = 608) were collected using the Course

Experience Questionnaire. Results showed that the instructional intervention (i.e. lectures

versus student-activating treatment) influenced students’ course experiences, but in the

opposite direction to that expected. In declining order, the following scales (5 out of 7)

revealed statistically significant differences: Clear Goals and Standards; the General scale;

Appropriate Workload; Good Teaching; and Independence. Moreover, when the assess-

ment mode was considered, also the Appropriate Assessment scale demonstrated

significant differences between the five research conditions. Moreover, the same teaching/

learning environments led to diverse students’ perceptions. While the perceptions of lec-

ture-taught students were focused and concordantly positive, students’ course experiences

with student-activating methods were widely varied and both extremely positive and

negative opinions were present. Students’ arguments in favour of the activating setting

were the variety of teaching methods, the challenging and active nature of the assignments

and the joys of collaborative work in teams, whereas students expressed dissatisfaction

with the perceived lack of learning gains, the associated time pressure and workloads, and

the (exclusive) use of collaborative assignments and related group difficulties.

K. Struyven (&) � F. Dochy � S. Janssens � S. GielenCentre for Research on Teaching and Training, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,Dekenstraat 2, 3000 Leuven, Belgiume-mail: [email protected]

F. Dochye-mail: [email protected]

S. Janssense-mail: [email protected]

S. Gielene-mail: [email protected]

123

Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:83–109DOI 10.1007/s10984-008-9041-8

Keywords Constructivism � Course Experience Questionnaire � Higher education �Lectures � Student-activating teaching methods/active teaching � Student

teachers’ perceptions

Introduction

The principle that underpinned this study is the statement of Entwistle (1991) that it is a

student’s perceptions of the learning environment that influence how that student learns

and not necessarily the context in itself. Students’ perceptions are essential to an under-

standing of student learning. Instructional interventions are always interpreted by students

and this interpretation of the environment, rather than the intervention itself, triggers both

the engagement of students in learning and the effects of the teaching/learning environment

(Elen and Lowyck 2000). This relationship between perceptions and student learning has

been repeatedly ratified by empirical data. In this regard, Konings et al. (2005) argue that

students’ perceptions of a learning environment affect their subsequent learning behaviours

and the quality of their learning outcomes. Consequently, it is no surprise that Fraser and

Fisher (1983) found statistically significant relationships between students’ perceptions of

the classroom environment and learning outcomes. Likewise, Ben-Ari and Eliassy (2003)

provide evidence for contextual effects on achievement motivation. Similarly, Biller

(1996) argues that students need to feel comfortable with the instruction that they receive

in order to learn.

These relationships between students’ outcomes and their perceptions have consequences

for the design of learning environments. In this respect, Trigwell and Prosser (1991) argue

that environments perceived to encourage deep approaches to learning will facilitate

higher-quality learning than environments designed to encourage surface approaches.

Consequently, it was hypothesised that constructivist learning/teaching environments,

which serve the purpose of deep, active and regulative learning (De Corte 2000; Oxford

1997; Sivan et al. 2000; Terwel 1999; Vermunt 1998; Von Glasersfeld 1988), affect

students’ perceptions and learning outcomes positively compared to traditional lecture-

based settings. In fact, the learning activities in which students engage largely determine the

quality of the learning outcomes that they attain (Vermunt and Verloop 1999). Three

categories of learning activities, namely, cognitive, affective and metacognitive (or

regulative) activities, might be encompassed by a wide variety of teaching strategies

(Vermunt and Verloop 1999). More than traditional paradigms, the (social)-constructivist

movement highlighted the metacognitive, self-regulative dimension of learning (De Corte

2000). Vermunt and Verloop (1999) argue that, when learning is increasingly seen as a

process of self-regulated knowledge construction, teaching models should take this learning

process as a point of departure. In this respect, student-activating teaching methods might

serve the purpose. ‘Student-activating teaching methods’, as defined in this study, challenge

students to construct knowledge by means of authentic assignments that literally require

their ‘active’ participation in the learning/teaching process in order to incorporate the

available information. Students are required to select, interpret and apply information and

knowledge to practical cases and to solve complex vocational problems (Jacobson and Mark

1995; Meyers and Jones 1993; Silberman 1996; Tenenbaum et al. 2001; Tynjala 1997;

White 1996). In contrast to lectures in which the teacher directly instructs the students in the

content of the course, students in the activating setting need to find, browse and acquire the

content themselves by means of real-life problem tasks, practical case studies or team-based

assignments (e.g. role plays, educational games). This instructional contrast constitutes the

84 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:83–109

123

primary focus of the present study, which investigated whether a student-activating

teaching/learning environment produces different (i.e. more positive) effects on students’

perceptions from those produced by a lecture-based environment. These differences are

studied by means of the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden 1991), which considers

students’ attitudes towards the teaching methods that were experienced.

Consistent with the hypothesised conducive role of student-activating teaching methods

in student learning (De Corte 2000; Oxford 1997; Terwel 1999; Vermunt 1998; Von

Glasersfeld 1988), educational literature on students’ perceptions of teaching is generally

positive for students’ experiences with the active instructional type (Mansfield 1989;

McNaughton and Krentz 2000). Although student performances often remain comparable

to lecture-based settings, particular (computer-supported) techniques tend to trigger

favourable effects on students’ experiences (Ballard et al. 2004; O’Leary et al. 2005; Woo

and Kimmick 2000). As such, Marcel (2003) found that students commented positively

about online experiences and mentioned interaction with other students, familiarity with

computers and the internet, ease of navigation, student collaboration and self-direction.

Likewise, Sobral (1995) found that the problem-based learning course experience was

perceived as personally more meaningful than the conventional lecture-based course

experience (Slavin 1996). Similarly, Perkins and Saris (2001) reported that students viewed

the jigsaw classroom technique positively because it helped them to understand statistical

procedures and offered a variety of learning experiences. These results are consistent with

research on the effects of active teaching on students’ approaches to learning (Case and

Marshall 2004; Sivan et al. 2000; Waters and Johnston 2004; Wierstra et al. 2003). When

students become active participants in the learning/teaching process, Sivan and colleagues

(2000) convincingly demonstrated increases in the deep approach to learning as a result of

the active learning environment. In particular, active learning made a valuable contribution

to the development of independent learning skills and students’ abilities to apply know-

ledge. However, these students did not engage in a solely student-activating teaching

environment because the ‘active’ courses included compulsory lectures. Also Wilson and

Fowler (2005) reported that the teaching/learning environment influences students’

approaches to learning. Whereas students who reported themselves as more typically deep

in their approach to learning were consistent in their approaches across the different

environments, students who reported themselves as more typically surface in their

approach were influenced to adopt deeper processing strategies in the action learning

design. Students explained this shift in terms of the greater expectations of learner activity

and responsibility with action learning. However, though the dynamics of students’

approaches to learning are well established, these studies seem to remain inconclusive

about the effects of students’ activation on their approaches to learning in comparison to a

lecture-based environment.

However, the student-activating story is not completely plain sailing and students also

report difficulties and problems that arise from their active course experiences. For

example, Marcel (2003) addressed critical issues that students raised about their online

experiences, including extra time spent in online learning, pace of the course, learning

strategies, course selection, mentor and instructor issues, attrition and performance.

Similarly, Welker and Berardino (2005) studied a blended learning format, which involved

the use of electronic learning tools that supplement, but do not replace, face-to-face

learning. Students reported flexibility, convenience and independence as advantages, along

with confusion, reduced social interaction and more work as disadvantages. Likewise,

Richardson (1997) found that students did not perceive computer instruction as being time

effective, compared to traditional didactic lectures, and Schmidt (2002) found that

Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:83–109 85

123

interaction was rated more favourably in the traditional setting than in the online teaching.

Hayward and Cairns (2001) also found that, although students preferred internet cases to

lectures, they expressed concerns about the accuracy and complexity of internet infor-

mation. Phipps et al. (2001) found students’ perceptions of cooperative learning to be

contradictory. Their study showed that overall the students perceived the (wide range of)

individual techniques of cooperative learning to be positive, yet they perceived cooperative

learning in general to be ineffective in terms of motivation (assuming no increase in study

time). Only half of the students in this study perceived cooperative learning to affect

motivation positively (48%). The authors explain that students could be rating overall

effectiveness negatively because they view group work as inefficient because it takes more

time and because it involves more sets of skills, such as interpersonal communication

skills, than does memorising lecture notes.

Nevertheless, these results reflect negatively of the effectiveness of activating learning

environments in terms of student learning. For example, Maguire et al. (2001) found that,

although students’ confidence levels in their ability to study and learning improved, they

became increasingly instrumental/surface in their approach to learning. The active skills

program ‘‘had not achieved its aim of encouraging students to adopt a deeper approach to

learning. Students have achieved a clear understanding of the different approaches to

learning but demonstrate an increasingly instrumental learning approach’’ (p. 104). These

results conform to the findings of Segers et al. (2006) that their student-activating teaching

methods, that were in line with constructivist principles and intended to deepen students’

approaches to learning, did not meet the purpose. In fact, surface approaches to learning

increased. Plausible explanations are that task conditions could interfere; for example,

‘reasonable’ workload could be a pre-condition of good studying and deep learning

(Chambers 1992; Kember 2004). In this respect, Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and

Trigwell and Prosser (1991) showed that a perceived heavy workload and less freedom in

learning related to a reproducing orientation or a surface approach, and that perceived good

teaching, clear goals and more freedom in learning related to a meaning orientation or a

deep approach. The perceived quality of teaching influences the approach to learning, and

in particular the perceived characteristics of the student-activating teaching methods

pushed students towards surface approaches to learning in order to cope with the high

workload requirements. Here again, the majority of studies remain inconclusive about the

effectiveness of active teaching methods in comparison to lecture-based environments.

In addition to the aforementioned educational research, an innovative characteristic of

the study is that the effects of the assessment method are included in the research design. In

particular pre-assessment effects, or the effects of the expectation of a particular evaluation

method on students’ learning before the actual examination takes place, are considered

(Dochy et al. 2006; Struyven et al. 2005). In this respect, the distinction between con-

ventional tests and alternative (new) modes of assessment is considered (Birenbaum 1996;

Sambell et al. 1997), as well as the difference(s) between formative and summative

functions of evaluation (Segers et al. 2003). A quasi-experimental design was used to

examine students’ course experiences in a student-activating environment in comparison of

a lecture-based setting, considering both instructional and evaluative procedures. There-

fore, quantitative data were provided by means of the Course Experience Questionnaire

and backed up by qualitative information on students’ perceptions about the learning/

teaching environment that they experienced.

Given the direct relationship between students’ perceptions and learning (Biller 1996;

Entwistle 1991; Fraser and Fisher 1983; Konings et al. 2005; Trigwell and Prosser 1991),

the importance of high levels of satisfaction on the course experience questionnaire with


123

the learning/teaching environment for student learning is legitimised. Characteristics of

both the instructional treatment (Lecture versus Student-activating treatment) and the

assessment method (Multiple-choice test, Case-based assessment, Peer assessment and

Portfolio assessment) might give rise to differences in course experiences, depending on

the criteria that are examined. A more detailed discussion of the identifying features of the

instructional and evaluation treatment is provided in the research design section.

Research design

Sample

The investigation had a quasi-experimental design. A course on Child Development was

delivered in five conditions, involving 608 students in their first year of an elementary

teacher training program at eight Flemish (Belgian) teacher education institutions. Students

were primarily female (83%) and aged 18–20 years. Students were randomly assigned to

the research conditions.

Procedure

In all, there were five research conditions in this investigation: one lecture-taught group

(lecture group 1) and four student-activating groups (activating groups 2–5) characterised

by one of four assessment modes. Table 1 provides a simple overview.

In order to control for differences in teaching approaches between the five conditions,

standardised learning materials on the subject of Child Development (including a course

book, a set of assignments and four assessment methods) were developed for a set of 10

lessons (each lasting 1 h 30 min). A total of 24 professional teachers from eight teacher

education institutions volunteered to participate in the study. The course on Child

Development consists of an instructional part during the lessons, associated with or

followed by an assessment part.

The instructional part of the course on Child Development

With respect to the instructional part of the treatment, the study of two contrasting

teaching/learning environments in terms of required self-regulative learning activities

(De Corte 2000; Vermunt and Verloop 1999) was central to this research project.

On the one hand, a group of pre-service teachers was instructed in the content on

Child Development within a lecture-based setting, characterised by direct teaching and

Table 1 Overview of the five research conditions, number of observations, instructional treatment andassociated method of assessment

Condition N Instructional treatment Assessment method

Le 114 Lectures Multiple-choice examination

Mc 109 Student-activating assignments Multiple-choice examination

Ca 107 Student-activating assignments Case-based examination

Pe 172 Student-activating assignments Peer/co-assessment

Po 106 Student-activating assignments Portfolio assessment


123

teacher/learner interaction through formal lectures (Lectures, N = 114). Instruction on the

content in the course book (Struyven et al. 2003) was given by the teacher who literally

stood in front of the class. Pre-structured transparencies were used to guarantee a fairly

standardised delivery of the contents. The lectures were informative and exemplified good

teaching practices. Hence, teacher/learner interactions were deliberately and continuously

integrated to stimulate active student thinking. A multiple-choice test, which is described

below, was used to assess student performance.

While the content of the course book was delivered to students through direct teaching

during the lectures, students in the student-activating learning environment (Activating,

N = 494) had to explore and discover the content in the (same) course book by means of

(solely) authentic assignments that required students to ‘actively’ browse and study the

information in teams (learner/learner interaction) in order to solve the problems set in the

tasks. Examples of these assignments, which are organised in a booklet, are problem-based

learning tasks, case studies, role-plays, educational games, simulations and other tasks that

need teamwork. Correction keys were provided. The teachers’ roles within the student-

activating learning environment were restricted to the supervision and coaching of students’

learning processes while tackling these tasks. The assignments were collaborative in nature

(6–8 students) and required shared responsibilities. The set of assignments included detailed

instructions that were associated with the assignments and self-directed both students and

teachers. For each assignment in the booklet, a description was given of the prior require-

ments, the goals and achievement standards of the assignment, and details of the methods

and procedures of the assignment. Moreover, the duration of each lesson (1.5 h) was devoted

to students working on the assignments. To avoid the problem of excessive workloads, study

efforts on the assignments outside the class were intentionally restricted to a minimum.

Apart from the problem-based tasks which required some (limited) self-study at home, other

teaching methods were to be completed within the course of a lesson.

Lessons were similar in the four student-activating groups: hence, these research con-

ditions received standardised treatment as the same content was studied, uniform

assignments were completed within comparable time restrictions and guided by identical

self-directing detailed instructions to both students and teachers. In addition, randomly

selected observations in the classes of participating teachers ensured the standardised

implementation of both instructional treatments (lectures versus student-activating

assignments). An overview of the lessons, their respective content and the associated

instructional methods is given in Table 2.

The assessment part of the course on Child Development

Although students in the activating group were instructed in the same way, the assessment

mode for the student-activating learning environment distinguished between four groups of

students, namely: students who were assigned (1) a portfolio assessment; (2) a case-based

assessment; (3) a peer/co-assessment; and (4) a multiple-choice test. On the one hand, the

selection was inspired by the distinction between conventional tests (e.g. multiple-choice

test—Le and Mc) and alternative (new) modes of assessment (e.g. portfolio, peer and case-

based assessment—Po, Pe, Ca), mirroring the shift from the traditional test culture to an

assessment culture (Birenbaum 1996; Sambell et al. 1997). On the other hand, evaluation

methods might serve a formative and/or summative function (Segers et al. 2003). Besides

two methods that serve a summative function (Le, Mc, Ca), highlighting the product of

learning; two methods were chosen that included a formative function (Pe, Po) in order to

enhance the process of learning as well.


123

Considering the importance of alignment between instruction and assessment (Biggs

1996; Segers et al. 2003), the lecture-based setting was only followed by the multiple-

choice test, whereas the case-based evaluation, peer assessment and portfolio assessment

required working with the student-activating assignments. Each assessment method is

discussed in detail and an overview of the characteristics is presented in Table 3. The

upper half of the figure describes the characteristics of the end-of-course examination or

assessment conversation, whereas the lower part emphasises the assessment procedure as it

is embedded in the course on Child Development.

Multiple-choice test. The multiple-choice test followed the set of classes and included

20 questions with four multiple-choice answers. To control for correct guessing and

associated high scoring, wrong answers were penalised by subtracting 1/3 point (correct

answer: 1 point, blank answer: 0 points). Items were equally divided over four categories

of questions: knowledge; insight; application; and problem solving. For each category, an

exemplary item is given:

• ‘knowledge’ (e.g. ‘‘Four defining statements [under a, b, c or d] are given about the

zone of proximal development [Vygotsky]. Which one is incorrect? Tick the

corresponding box.’’)

• ‘insight’ (e.g. ‘‘The developmental process of children is enhanced by playing. The

question is WHY? Tick the box of the correct answer [a, b, c or d].’’)

• ‘application’ (e.g. ‘‘For each choice-answer [a, b, c or d] a selection of playing

materials is listed. Which set of plays will appeal most to a 4-year-old kindergarten

boy? Indicate the corresponding answer.’’)

Table 2 Overview of content and teaching methods by lesson for the student-activating treatment

Lesson Content Teaching methods

Lesson 1 Introduction to instruction/evaluation Class teaching

Introduction to Child Development Introductory case studya

Construction of one’s developmental life storya

Discussion/debate by statementsa

Lesson 2 Prenatal period Learning contracta,b

Neonates and baby Video-based assignmentb

Lesson 3 Neonates and baby Role playa

Toddler and kindergartner Problem-based assignment 1 (start)a

Lesson 4 Toddler and kindergartner Problem-based assignment 1 (conclusion)a

Toddler and kindergartner Problem-based assignment 1 (extension)a

Lesson 5 Schoolchild Problem-based assignment 2 (start)a

Lesson 6 Schoolchild Problem-based assignment 2 (conclusion)a

Task on playing skills developmenta

Lesson 7 Schoolchild Working in cornersa

Lesson 8 Schoolchild Reflection taskb

Adolescent Case study (start)a

Lesson 9 Adolescent Case study (conclusion)a

Synthesis Educational board gamea,b

Lesson 10 Information on examination Class teaching

Opportunity for questions Class teaching

a Collaborative assignments, b individual work


123

Ta

ble

3O

ver

vie

wo

fth

ech

arac

teri

stic

s(a

nd

dif

fere

nce

s)fo

rth

efo

ur

asse

ssm

ent

met

ho

ds

inth

est

ud

y

Ass

essm

ent

char

acte

rist

ics

Mult

iple

choic

eC

ase

bas

edP

eer

asse

ssm

ent

Port

foli

o

Op

en/c

lose

db

oo

kex

amin

atio

nC

lose

dO

pen

Op

enO

pen

Ind

ivid

ual

/ex

amin

gro

up

Ind

ivid

ual

Ind

ivid

ual

Gro

up

Ind

ivid

ual

Wri

tten

/ora

lex

amin

atio

nW

ritt

enW

ritt

enO

ral

Ora

l

Ques

tions

inth

eex

amdea

ldir

ectl

yw

ith?

Info

rmat

ion

inco

urs

eb

oo

kC

ase

stud

y(i

nre

lati

on

toco

urs

eb

oo

kin

fo)

Gro

up

task

s(i

nre

lati

on

toco

urs

eb

oo

kin

fo)

Po

rtfo

lio

(in

rela

tio

nto

cou

rse

bo

ok

info

)

Pre

par

atio

no

fst

ud

ents

for

the

asse

ssm

ent

met

ho

dd

uri

ng

the

cou

rse?

Les

son

1In

stru

ctio

ns

Inst

ruct

ions

Inst

ruct

ions

+T

ry-o

ut

Inst

ruct

ion

s

Mea

nti

me

/C

ase

stu

dy

on

ado

lesc

ence

Inte

rim

pee

rfe

edb

ack

(3se

ssio

ns)

aIn

teri

mfe

edb

ack

(1se

ssio

n)

Les

son

10

Exem

pla

ryq

ues

tio

ns

Cas

eto

go

(ho

me)

+E

xem

pla

ryq

ues

tion

s

Ex

emp

lary

qu

esti

on

sE

xem

pla

ryq

ues

tion

s

Fo

rmat

ive/

sum

mat

ive

use

of

the

eval

uat

ion

Su

mm

ativ

eS

um

mat

ive

Fo

rmat

ive

+S

um

mat

ive

Fo

rmat

ive

+S

um

mat

ive

Inte

rim

feed

bac

k(f

orm

alse

ssio

ns)

No

No

(Yes

,af

ter

each

gro

up

’sp

aper

)aY

es,

1in

teri

mse

ssio

n(a

nd

on

dem

and

)

Co

urs

ew

ork

calc

ula

ted

infi

nal

sco

re?

No

No

Yes

Yes

Fin

alsc

ore

det

erm

ined

by?

Exam

Exam

Gro

up

task

s(N

=3

)+

Pee

ras

sess

men

ts+

Ex

amG

rou

pta

sks,

incl

.In

div

idu

alre

flec

tions

(Port

foli

o)

+E

xam

aD

ue

toti

me

rest

rict

ion

s,te

ach

ers

wer

eu

nab

leto

pro

vid

est

ud

ents

wit

hth

ein

teri

mp

eer

feed

bac

kin

form

atio

n


123

• ‘problem solving’ (e.g. ‘‘Mary was aged six when she enters your class in the first year

of elementary school. When Mary was 1-year-old, doctors diagnosed her with

leukaemia, which is a serious disease/cancer in which the body produces too many

white blood cells. The following years were not only very stressful, but also very

tiresome and detrimental to Mary’s developmental process. Today, Mary has fully

recovered, but she still suffers some ill effects of the cancer: (1) Mary falls ill very

easily because she has a low resistance to disease. As a consequence, she has been

frequently absent from school; (2) also, entire days at school are very tiresome and hard

on Mary. Her mother asked you, if you were to notice that Mary was getting tired, to let

her doze off for a while in the cosy corner of your classroom to recover. Attending all

lessons in a concentrated manner therefore is not possible; (3) Mary has spent a lot of

time, literally sick and tired, stuck to her hospital bed. Consequently, she has been

experiencing difficulties in mastering movement and balance (learning how to walk and

run, throwing/catching objects, etc.). Also Mary’s fine-motor skills are insufficient; (4)

Mary finds it hard to get in touch with other pupils. She does not engage in play with

other children. Rather, she plays by herself in a corner at the playground. Also

teamwork in class is not obvious. Mary’s parents told you that at home Mary does not

notice Matthew, her little brother or at least she does not initiate contact with him; (5)

Nonetheless, Mary is normally gifted and very eager to learn. She has mastered the

English language as well as the other pupils in your class. As already mentioned, Mary

is a pupil in your class. The answers/choices refer to possible risks for Mary’s

developmental process in class. In your opinion, what is the most urgent risk for Mary

that will need your immediate attention (and treatment). Tick the correct box.’’)

Case-based assessment. The case-based assessment (Segers 2003) concerned ‘Miss

Ellen’, who is a teacher in the third year of elementary school. The case material, involving

a set of information and documents about the class and pupils, included the following: the

class report for the first trimester, the detailed planning of a week, the thematic planning of

the whole school year, the floor plan of the classroom and its play materials, a medical

record on Robert, and a letter from Cindy’s mother. Students received the case materials

after the final lesson in order to prepare for their examination. The examination questions

remained confidential and all concerned this ‘case study’. Students were allowed to use all

resources available (e.g. course book, case documentation, articles, etc.) to complete their

examination. An example of a question is: ‘‘Are there any students in the class of Miss

Ellen who might suffer from the learning disability ‘dyslexia’? Tick the box in front of

their name (in the list), and use the blank space to explain on what evidence or information

in the case materials you have made this attribution.’’

Peer/co-assessment. Peer assessment has been used to differentiate between individual

contributions to small-group projects (Topping 2003). In particular, three problem-based

assignments related to the content of Child Development were subject of the peer evalu-

ation, involving group member scoring their peers and themselves on the learning and

collaborative processes within the group and contributions to the tasks’ solutions. An

example of a problem-based assignment involved ‘Frank’, a teacher in kindergarten, who

has been reading a chapter about the developmental stage of young children in kinder-

garten. As a consequence, he became worried that his classroom did not comply with the

theories in the book and he thought that enrichment and redecoration of his classroom

might be needed. Students were provided with the floor plan of Frank’s classroom and

were required to assess the interior organisation (and accessories) on the basis of the

developmental theories for the kindergarten age. Suggestions for enrichment or interior


123

(re)arrangements (e.g. the purchase of new or alternative learning materials and plays; the

re-arrangement of furniture) ought to be proposed (and legitimated) as a result.

Obviously, the peer assessment scoring, which was associated with each problem task, was

anonymous. For each of 10 criteria (e.g. critical thinking; involvement in group discussions;

accurateness and relevance of preparations; willingness to undertake arranged tasks), stu-

dents had to indicate for each team member (and themselves) whether he/she contributed

more (score 3), equally (score 2) or less (score 1) than average or if the student had no

contribution to the group’s work at all (score 0). These scores were calculated into an

individual peer factor, including a correction for favouritism (i.e. subtraction of the highest

and lowest score for each student). In addition, the teacher scored the groups’ product to the

problem-based assignment. Depending on the individual peer factor, this teacher’s score

increased or decreased. Students were to be informed of this score (and their average score on

each criterion) after each of the three assignments, so that the peer assessment would serve

formative assessment purposes as well. In order to conclude the peer-assessment procedure,

an oral group-assessment conversation on the group’s assignments was arranged.

Portfolio assessment. The portfolio assessment consisted of a portfolio document,

including the portfolio-constructing process (interim feedback session) and an end-of-

course assessment interview with the teacher on the definitive portfolio, serving both

formative and summative purposes. The portfolio document contained a selection of

activating assignments tackled during classes, elaborated with students’ reflections on their

own experiences and learning (Davies and LeMahieu 2003; Janssens et al. 2001). In this

respect, it is an example of a showcase portfolio with an intentional reflective component

(Tillema and Smith 2000).

The scores for the course on Child Development were solely determined by the score on

the multiple-choice test (Le and Mc) and the case-based (Ca) conditions, whereas students’

work on the group assignments (Pe) and on the portfolio (Po) was included in students’

final marks for the peer and portfolio conditions. Hence, the latter students (Pe and Po) had

to hand in their assignments for evaluation purposes and, consequently, could have

invested more effort and study work in their assignments. Apart from the multiple choice-

examination (Le and Mc), all assessment methods took place by means of an open-book

format which allowed the use of resources. The multiple-choice examination (Le and Mc)

and case-based evaluation (Ca) were individual written examinations, whereas both the

peer (Pe) and portfolio assessments (Po) were accompanied by an oral assessment con-

versation, in groups and individually, respectively. These assessment conversations mainly

concerned the submitted work, namely, the problem-based assignments and the definitive

portfolio. Within the student-activating treatment, these features of the expected assess-

ment method might give rise to differences in course experiences (e.g. appropriate

workload, independence, etc.). Of course, thorough preparations were made for students to

become informed and skilled examination participants. For instance, information on the

assessment method was given during the first lesson of the course and sample examination

questions were distributed beforehand. The methods, including formative assessment such

as portfolio and peer assessment, also comprised (in)formative directions/feedback from

the teacher and a try-out session.

Instruments and data collection

Data were obtained by means of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ36; Ramsden

1991), of which an overview is given in Table 4. At the end of the final lesson, students

were asked to indicate their experiences with the course on Child Development by means


123

of 38 items. The perceived quality of the course on Child Development was comprised of

six scales: Good Teaching, Clear Goals and Standards, Generic Skills, Appropriate

Assessment, Appropriate Workload and Independence. Additionally, two items attempted

to measure the students’ overall course satisfaction in the ‘General’ scale. Moreover, as the

six scales are assumed to comprise the perceived quality of the course on Child Deve-

lopment. Moreover, as significant correlations with the ‘general scale’ were demonstrated,

the Total quality was also calculated by averaging the sum of the items completed in the

Course Experience Questionnaire. The reliability of the ‘Total’ scale was indicated by a

high a coefficient (a = 0.877). A five-point Likert scale was used to register the students’

responses of Agree = 5, Agree Somewhat = 4, Unsure = 3, Disagree Somewhat = 2 to

Disagree = 1. Each item was set as a variable and a scale total was produced by creating a

new variable by summing the item scores. The SAS Entreprise Guide and SPSS 12.0

software was used to carry out the scoring and statistical analyses. In agreement with the

Table 4 Reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s a) and sample question for each scale in the Course ExperienceQuestionnaire (Ramsden 1991), including example questions

Scale No. ofitems

a Sample question

General 2 0.570 The degree course is intellectually stimulating.

Overall, I’m satisfied with the quality of this degree course.

Good teaching 8 0.762 The teaching staff of this course motivate students to do theirbest work.

Staff here put a lot of time into commenting on students’ work.

Clear goals andstandards

5 0.754 It’s always easy here to know the standard of work expected.

You usually have a clear idea of where you’re going and what’sexpected of you.

Generic Skills 6 0.811 This course has helped me to develop my problem-solving skills.

This course has helped develop my ability to work as a teammember.

Appropriateassessment

6 0.699 To do well on this course all you really need is a good memory.(negative)

Too many staff ask us questions just about facts. (negative)

Appropriateworkload

5 0.683 The workload is too heavy. (negative)

It seems to me that the syllabus tries to cover too many topics.(negative)

Independencea 4 0.570 Students have a great deal of choice over how they are going tolearn in this course.

There are few opportunities to choose the particular areas youwant to study. (negative)

Totalb 36 0.877

a When the following items were omitted from the Independence scale, reliability measures increased tomediocre levels (a = 0.570): ‘‘There are few opportunities to choose the particular areas you want to study’’and ‘‘There is very little choice in this course in the ways you are assessed’’b Pearson correlations coefficients showed positive, significant scores between the scales of the CEQ andthe ‘General’ scale. Hence, a Total category was calculated. A high a coefficient confirmed the procedure tobe sound. One exception is the ‘Appropriate Assessment’ scale, which did not correlate with the ‘General’scale (r = –0.04). However, because the assessment method was essentially part of the research design (anda high a coefficient is secured), the scale was included to represent an accurate reproduction of students’overall course experiences


123

results of Ramsden (1991) and Wilson et al. (1997), the reliability of the Course Exper-

ience Questionnaire was sound (0.683–0.877 for different scales). Exceptions are the

General (a = 0.570) and Independence scales (a = 0.461) that showed lower alpha-scores

of reliability. However, after omitting two items from the Independence category (see

Table 4), the low alpha score heightened to the mediocre level (a = 0.570). Hence, the

reduced Independence scale (4 items) served the purpose of statistical analyses.

Because of the differences in teaching methods between the lecture-based group and the

student-activating environments, an additional evaluative question assessed students’

perceptions of the instructional methods that they experienced during the course on Child

Development. The item was: ‘‘How do you assess the teaching methods you have exper-

ienced during the course on Child Development?’’ Students had to indicate on a five-point

scale one of the following answers: Very Good, Good, Moderate, Weak or Very Weak.

Blank space was provided for optional comments, which were listed, categorised and

quantified into a simple numeric table (see Table 10). The same was done for students’

perceptions of the assessment methods.

Results

Because of the authentic, constructive, collaborative and self-regulative nature of the

activating assignments used in this study (De Corte 2000; Oxford 1997; Terwel 1999;

Vermunt 1998; Von Glasersfeld 1988), and considering the scales in the Course Exper-

ience Questionnaire, scores were expected to be higher for the student-activating learning

environment than for the lecture-based setting on the following scales: Generic Skills,

Independence and, consequently, higher General/Total scales. In order to control for dif-

ferences in teaching approach, explicit attention was given to the construction of

standardised learning materials and to monitoring implementation practices. For example,

explicit interventions were undertaken to secure standardised instruction in class; to inform

students about the goals and standards of the course in the booklet of assignments; and to

prevent excessive workload by restricting time on task to time in class. As a consequence,

no differences between the instructional treatments (activating assignments vs. lectures)

were expected for the scales of Good teaching, Clear Goals and Standards and Appropriate

Workload. The expected assessment method might also generate differences in course

experiences, in particular on the Appropriate Assessment scale, but possibly also on the

scales such as Appropriate Workload (e.g. students in the Pe and Po conditions need to

hand in assignments; or experiences might be different between conditions depending on

the open-book or closed-book format of the examination) or Independence (e.g. students in

the Po group are free to select tasks to include in the portfolio; or Pe students have a say

about the criteria that were included in the peer assessment procedure). Given the categ-

orised independent variable (i.e. instructional/evaluative treatment), descriptive statistics

were calculated and the analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used in order to confirm or

reject these statements. Effect sizes (R2 and/or Cohen’s d) are provided. With respect to the

ordinal evaluative items on the experienced teaching methods or the expected assessment

method, the non-parametric variants of the analyses of variance procedure were used: the

Mann–Witney test (for two independent samples) and Kruskal–Wallis test (for k inde-

pendent samples). The Results section comprises three parts; parts 1 and 2 report the results

of the Course Experience Questionnaire by instructional treatment (lectures vs. student-

activating teaching) and by instructional/evaluation treatment (Le, Mc, Ca, Pe, Po) which

considers the pre-assessment effect of the diverse assessment methods included in the


123

design. Part 3 pinpoints students’ perceptions of the instructional method evaluation format

that they experienced during, or expect after, the course on Child Development, revealing

students’ arguments in positive and negative directions.

The contrast lectures versus student-activating teaching: CEQ

Regarding the instructional treatment (lectures vs. student-activating teaching), the simple

statistics in Table 5 already reveal remarkable differences in students’ experiences of the

same course content when delivered by student-activating or lecture-based methods.

Compared to the lecture-based setting, the perceived quality of the course was generally

lower in the student-activating learning environment. Conversely, standard deviations are

(significantly) higher, suggesting that students’ opinions of the quality of their experiences

are more divided.

The analyses of variance (Table 5) showed statistically significant discrepancies

between the two learning environments for five scales in the CEQ and the Total perceived

quality measure, accompanied by medium (d C 0.50) and large effect sizes (d C 0.80). In

contrast with the premises, the Generic Skills scale did not differentiate between lectures

and student-activating assignments. Moreover, both scales referring to the overall quality

of the course (General and Total), clearly distinguish between the lecture-taught students

and their activated peers as these two scales account for nearly 20% of the variance.

Likewise, the Clear Goals and Standards scale differed between the conditions, with lec-

ture-taught students feeling better informed about the aims and requirements of the course.

Moreover, despite the content being the same and efforts to limit time on task to in-class

time, the student-activating students perceived the Workload to be remarkably less

appropriate (i.e. heavier) than their lecture-taught companions. Finally, though the

variances shown by these scales were lower and the effect sizes were modest, the results

Table 5 ANOVA for Course Experience Questionnaire scales comparing lectures with student-activatingteaching methods

Source Lectures(Le)

Activating(Act)

df F p* R2 d a Comparisonsb

M SDc M SD

General 4.01 0.61 2.90 0.95 1, 606 143.61 \0.0001* 0.192 1.39 Le [ Act

Good teaching 3.84 0.64 3.33 0.77 1, 605 43.07 \0.0001* 0.067 0.72 Le [ Act

Clear goals 3.72 0.67 2.74 0.81 1, 605 143.69 \0.0001* 0.192 1.32 Le [ Act

Generic skills 2.86 0.70 2.72 0.80 1, 605 3.31 0.0694 0.005 0.19 /

Appropriate assessment 3.52 0.63 3.47 0.74 1, 604 0.40 0.5284 0.001 0.07 /

Appropriate workload 3.58 0.67 2.84 0.74 1, 605 94.50 \0.0001* 0.135 1.05 Le [ Act

Independence 3.32 0.65 2.89 0.77 1, 604 30.86 \0.0001* 0.049 0.60 Le [ Act

Total 3.55 0.42 2.98 0.49 1, 606 127.91 \0.0001* 0.174 1.25 Le [ Act

* p \ 0.05a Cohen’s d: d [ 0.50 = medium, d [ 0.80 = largeb Bonferroni comparisons: a = 0.05c ANOVA for the standard deviations demonstrate significant differences for the following CEQ scales:General, Good teaching, Clear goals, Appropriate workload and the Total scale

NLect = 114, NAct = 494


123

show significant effects for the instructional treatment in terms of the Good Teaching and

Independence scales.

The ‘Appropriate Assessment’ scale is not discussed here because analyses by research

condition are needed to provide accurate information about these measurements as four

assessment methods were used. Hence, the next section considers these issues.

The instructional contrast, including pre-assessment effects: CEQ

As already mentioned, the treatments in the present study did not only involve the dif-

ferences between teaching methods. Although the questionnaire was administered before

the examination period, the differences between assessment methods might also explain

the findings for students’ course experiences. Table 6 shows simple statistics for the

Course Experience Questionnaire scales, while Table 7 reports the ANOVA results for the

five research conditions.

Although the Bonferroni comparisons more than once replicated the difference in

instructional treatment between the lecture-taught students and their student-activating

fellows, the differences in assessment mode that are associated with the course also

accounted for an important amount of the variance on the scales of the Course Experience

Questionnaire, as differences within the student-activating group demonstrate. Although

the perceived Total quality of the course was moderate, students in the Portfolio (Po)

condition were significantly more satisfied with their experiences of the student-activating

course than were students in the Case condition (Ca) and the active Multiple-choice test

group (Mc). The perceived Total quality is not entirely consistent with the results for the

General items in the questionnaire, for which the Peer group (Pe) had the lowest scores.

Next, the Clear Goals and Standards scale replicated the instructional difference between

the lecturing and student-activating treatments. This distinction was similarly demonstrated

in the Appropriate Workload scale, but with the order of conditions being different. The

Good Teaching scale again showed the perceived differences between the experienced

modes of instruction. In addition, the Peer assessment students (Pe) were more content with

their teachers’ support and encouragement compared with their peers in the Portfolio (Po),

Table 6 Descriptive statistics for the Course Experience Questionnaire scales by research conditions

Scale Le Mc Ca Pe Po

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

General 4.01 0.61 2.89 1.00 2.96 0.94 2.75 0.95 3.10 0.85

Good teaching 3.84 0.64 3.16 0.82 3.13 0.88 3.57 0.65 3.30 0.67

Clear goals 3.72 0.67 2.64 0.75 2.78 0.83 2.73 0.83 2.84 0.81

Generic skills 3.86 0.70 2.58 0.78 2.68 0.78 2.83 0.84 2.71 0.76

Appropriate assessment 3.52 0.63 3.30 0.74 3.36 0.85 3.53 0.72 3.66 0.58

Appropriate workload 3.58 0.67 2.79 0.82 2.74 0.70 2.84 0.71 2.99 0.74

Independence 3.32 0.65 2.68 0.82 2.80 0.78 2.90 0.73 3.18 0.72

Total 3.55 0.42 2.86 0.55 2.92 0.48 3.02 0.45 3.12 0.48

Conditions: Le = lecture-based LE + Multiple choice test; Mc = student-activating LE + Multiple choicetest; Ca = student-activating LE + Case-based examination; Pe = student-activating LE + peer/co-assessment; Po = student-activating LE + portfolio

NLe = 114, NMc = 109, NCa = 107, NPe = 172, NPo = 106


123

active Multiple-Choice test (Mc) and Case-based conditions (Ca). The next scale, in terms

of the variance shown, is the Independence scale, which did not entirely replicate the

instructional treatment. In fact, the Portfolio condition (Po) showed similarities to the

Lecture-taught group (Le) and significantly differed from the Peer condition (Pe), the Case-

based (Ca) group and active Multiple-choice group (Mc). Although the Generic Skills and

Appropriate Assessment scales reveal significant ANOVA values, they only accounted for

a limited proportion of the variance. The Bonferroni comparisons significantly differen-

tiated the Portfolio group (Po) from the Case-based (Ca) and active Multiple-choice

conditions (Mc), but only with respect to students’ experiences with the assessment

method. Interestingly, the Multiple-choice conditions (Le and Mc) students score diffe-

rently on the Appropriate Assessment scale in the questionnaire. Repeatedly, ANOVA

analyses for the standard deviations revealed significantly lower values in the lecture-

taught group for several scales in the CEQ, suggesting that these students agree with each

other more compared with students in the activating conditions, who tend to display more

divergent opinions.

Students’ comments with respect to lectures or student-activating teaching

In addition, students were asked to rate the experienced instruction on a five-point scale

that ranged from Very Good (++) to Very Weak (--), as demonstrated in Table 8. In

accordance with the high standard deviations, the results suggest that the student-activating

group could be divided into supporters and opponents of these methods of teaching. The

Mann–Witney test showed statistically significant differences between the two instruc-

tional settings (see Table 8). Strikingly, more students in the activating group felt very

satisfied (14.81%) as well as very dissatisfied (8.37%) with the experienced teaching

methods, compared to their peers in the lecture-taught group (respectively, 12.39% and

0.88%). This finding is largely mirrored in the analyses by research condition (Le, Mc, Ca,

Table 7 ANOVA for Course Experience Questionnaire scales comparing research conditions

Source df F p* R2 Comparisonsa,b

General 4, 603 39.04 \0.0001* 0.206 Le [ Po, Ca, Mc, Pe

Po [ Pe

Good teaching 4, 602 19.53 \0.0001* 0.115 Le [ Pe, Po, Mc, Ca

Pe [ Po, Mc, Ca

Clear goals 4, 602 36.91 \0.0001* 0.197 Le [ Po, Ca, Pe, Mc

Generic skills 4, 602 2.65 0.0325* 0.017 /

Appropriate assessment 4, 601 4.47 0.0014* 0.029 Po [ Ca, Mc

Appropriate workload 4, 602 25.41 \0.0001* 0.144 Le [ Po, Pe, Mc, Ca

Independence 4, 601 14.58 \0.0001* 0.088 Le, Po [ Pe, Ca, Mc

Total 4, 603 37.42 \0.0001* 0.199 Le [ Po, Pe, Ca, Mc

Po [ Ca, Mc

* p \ 0.05a Bonferroni comparisons: a = 0.05b ANOVA for the standard deviations show significant differences between the conditions for the followingCEQ-scales (between parentheses the significant Bonferroni-comparisons are demonstrated, a = 0.05):General (Po [ Le), Good Teaching (Po, Mc, Pe, Ca [ Le), Clear Goals (Mc, Po, Pe [ Le), AppropriateWorkload (Po, Pe, Ca, Mc [ Le) and the Total scale (Po [ Le)


123

Pe, Po). However, the Kruskal–Wallis analysis of the teaching method by research con-

dition (see Table 9) only revealed significant differences in assessments between the

lecture-taught students and the case-based examination group; the other conditions were

between the two extremes.

Apparently, the same educational setting is able to trigger diverse students’ percep-

tions. Whereas the perceptions of lecture-taught students were focused and generally

positive, students’ course experiences with student-activating methods were ambiguous

and widespread; the activated students clearly were divided into a supportive group and a

group of opponents. The additional comments associated with the assessment ques-

tion about the instructional methods revealed interesting arguments in both directions

(see Table 10). Because the teaching method was central to this item in the questionnaire

and because of its optional nature (less than a 50% response rate), students’ answers are

only discussed by instructional treatment. Hence, caution in generalising results is

recommended.

The results in Table 10 substantiate both extreme positive and negative students’

course experiences in the student-activating setting (and the lecture-taught condition).

Arguments in favour of the activated learning environment emphasised the variety of

teaching methods that was adopted (38.19%), the challenging, active nature of the setting

Table 8 Percentage of responses by instructional treatment to the item ‘‘How do you assess the teachingmethods you have experienced during the course on Child Development?’’

Condition N M SD Percentage of responses

Very good Good Moderate Weak Very weak Total

Lectures 113 3.60 0.86 12.39 46.90 30.09 9.73 0.88 100

Student-activating teaching 466 3.32 1.16 14.81 34.98 26.82 15.02 8.23 100

The Mann–Witney test for two unrelated samples revealed statistically significant differences between bothgroups (Mann–Witney U = 23716, 5, p = 0.036)

Table 9 Percentage of responses by research condition to the item ‘‘How do you assess the teachingmethods you have experienced during the course on Child Development?’’



Le 113 3.60 0.86 12.4 46.9 30.1 9.7 0.9 100

Mc 107 3.49 1.10 15.9 41.1 26.2 9.3 7.5 100

Ca 104 3.13 1.10 7.7 36.5 24.0 24.0 7.7 100

Pe 163 3.28 1.18 16.6 28.8 29.4 16.6 8.6 100

Po 104 3.39 1.22 18.3 35.6 24.0 11.5 10.6 100


Kruskall-Wallis test for research condition revealed statistically significant results (Chi-square = 11.445;df = 4; p = 0.022)

If the scale-scores are used, the Bonferonni comparisons reveal significant differences (a = 0.05) for:Le [ Ca


123

(15.97%) and the joys of team-based, collaborative work with fellow students (9.72%).

Another set of favourable arguments related to the research group, namely, student

teachers who felt that they learn about teaching methods (7.64%) by means of experi-

encing this course on Child Development. They highlighted the applicability of the

teaching methods for their practice (5.56%) and liked the newness and innovativeness of

the diverse methods (5.56%).

Table 10 Frequency of students’ comments, categorised into pro- and contra-arguments and subcategor-ised by meaning

Students’ comment Activating Lectures

Frequency % Frequency %

Pro-arguments

Variety of teaching methods 55 38.19 9 42.86

Challenging/fun/great 23 15.97 1 4.76

Collaboration/team-work 14 9.72

OK/interesting/good/informative 11 7.64 6 28.57

Learning about teaching (methods) 11 7.64

Applicability for own teaching 8 5.56

New/innovative value of teaching (methods) 8 5.56

Interesting/challenging/real life assignments 7 4.86

Particular teaching method 3 2.08

Learning about child development 2 1.39 3 14.29

No lecturing by the teacher 1 0.69

Other pro-arguments 1 0.69 2 9.52

Total 144 100.00 21 100.00

Contra-arguments

Poor learning gains 24 16.11

Lack of variety in methods 21 14.09 14 63.64

Too much team-work/collaboration 16 10.74

Difficulties with time management 15 10.07

No lecturing/insufficient feedback 14 9.40

Chaotic/always different/new 14 9.40

Unstructured/confusing/unclear 8 5.37

Group difficulties and free-riding 7 4.70

Particular teaching method 6 4.03

Too difficult 4 2.68

Tasks were divided between students 3 2.01

Complex/cohesion? 3 2.01

Inappropriate for course on child development 2 1.34

Not fun 2 1.34

Dislike of collaborative teaching 2 1.34

Large group size/disturbing noise 4 18.18

Too little (learner/learner) interaction 2 9.09

Other contra-arguments 8 5.37 2 9.09

Total 149 100.00 22 100.00


123

Interestingly, students in the lecture-based setting also liked the variety of teaching

methods (42.86%). Teachers varied between direct teaching and teacher/learner interac-

tion, and occasionally showed video fragments for visualising the theory that had been

taught. Also the informative nature of the classes (28.57%) and the learning that occurred

concerning the processes of Child Development (14.29%) were important supportive

arguments regarding the lectures.

Conversely, dissatisfaction was expressed with the student-activating teaching. For

example, several students actually doubted whether they ‘learned’ the information on Child

Development in their course book. Though they remembered reading and using (parts and

pieces of) the information in the course book, they expressed doubt over actually

‘knowing’ the content on Child Development. Hence, students reported a lack of learning

gains and poor learning outcomes (16.11%) due to the teaching methods, which were

perceived as unstructured (5.37%) and chaotic—because they always were different and

new (9.40%) and (therefore) difficult (2.68%). As a consequence, students suffered time

pressures and intensive workload (10.07%), felt insufficiently informed about the content

of Child Development because of the lack of structured, informative lectures or classical

feedback from the teacher (9.40%), and were left with the uncomfortable feeling of being

unable to see the wood for the trees (2.01%). Despite the abovementioned appraisal of the

variety of teaching methods of activated supporters, students in the contra-group thought

the contrary and felt that the student-activating setting lacked variety and was dull

(14.09%) because exclusively collaborative methods were adopted. These students

opposed the continually required team work (14.09%), simply disliked this type of

teaching (1.34%) and/or reported group difficulties and the problem of free-riding fellow

students (4.70%). Moreover, due to the team-based approach, students divided the effort

and work among group members (2.01%), which could have jeopardised the learning

outcomes of the activated students.

The same phenomenon is reflected in students’ comments on the lectures. Whereas

several students appreciated the variety of teaching methods (42.86%), the primary

argument against lectures was the lack of variety of teaching methods (63.64%) and the

lack of learner/learner interaction (9.09%). Another contra-argument refers to the extensive

group size (approximately 60 students) attending the lectures and subsequently disturbing

noises (18.18%).

With regard to the ‘expected’ assessment methods, students were provided with a

similar assessment question. Table 11 clearly shows that the lecture-based students (Le), as

well as their peers in the activating learning environment with portfolio assessment (Po),

were most satisfied with their expected mode of assessment. In contrast, students in the

student-activating learning environments with multiple-choice testing (Mc), case-based

examinations (Ca) or peer assessment (Pe) thought negatively about their forthcoming

evaluation method. The Kruskal–Wallis test for k independent groups revealed statistically

significant results (v2 = 37.34, df = 4, p B 0.0001) and the Bonferroni mean comparisons

replicated the differences between the lecture-based setting (Le), the activated portfolio

condition (Po) and the other conditions in the study (Mc, Ca, Pe).

Here again, the additional comments associated with this item, and the abovementioned

values, revealed interesting arguments in both positive and negative directions. Arguments

that support positive ratings on the scale, are: ‘‘cramming for the exam is unnecessary’’

(Po), ‘‘theories need to be put into practice’’/‘‘applications of theory are more important’’

(Po, Ca), ‘‘instructive’’/‘‘informative’’ (Po, Pe, Ca), ‘‘compatible with my interests and

experiences’’ (Po), ‘‘no ‘real’ examination’’ (Pe, Po), ‘‘interesting method’’ (Pe), ‘‘you

learn how to deal with the evaluations of your work by others than the teacher’’ (Pe), ‘‘open


123

book format’’ (Ca), ‘‘looking up information is fascinating’’ (Ca), ‘‘too much information

in order to study/crap’’ (Ca), ‘‘little writing is needed’’ (Mc/Le), ‘‘intellectually challenging

questions’’ (Le), ‘‘questions cover the range of the course’’ (Le), ‘‘you know whether you

really understand everything’’ (Le), ‘‘stress is on applications’’ (Le), and ‘‘the correct

answer is already shown’’ (Mc/Le). Arguments against the expected assessment method are

the following: ‘‘high workload’’/‘‘much effort needed’’ (Po), ‘‘do I really know everything

about the contents in the course?’’/‘‘I did not grasp the information on Child Development’’

(Po), ‘‘subjective’’/‘‘favouritism’’/‘‘appropriate evaluation method?’’ (Pe), ‘‘difficult’’ (Pe),

‘‘not all students attend classes regularly’’ (Pe), ‘‘what is my final score going to be like?’’

(Pe), ‘‘I never actually study the theories and information in the course book’’ (Ca, Pe, Po),

‘‘easy’’ (Ca), ‘‘the assignments in class should count for our final score’’ (Ca), ‘‘answers

resemble each other’’ (Le), ‘‘no additional comments and support are allowed’’ (Mc/Le)

and ‘‘too much information to study’’ (Mc/Le).

It should be noted that the students in the portfolio (Po) and peer-assessment (Pe)

conditions had prior hands-on experience with the formative part of the evaluation

method and the lecture-taught group (Le) had experienced a partial multiple-choice

format examination at the time when this question needed to be addressed. After the

examination, students’ evaluative scores for the assessment method could display a

different picture.

Discussion and conclusions

Students’ arguments about the teaching method(s) that they experienced tended to explain

the results as displayed by the Course Experience Questionnaire. In particular, the

Appropriate Workload, Clear Goals and Standards, and General/Total scales, each

accounting for 20% of the variance, differentiated between the lecture-based and the

student-activating teaching/learning environments and between the five research con-

ditions. These findings are consistent with the evidence that the activating setting proved to

be significantly more labour-intensive than the lecture-based format, hence triggering

Table 11 Percentage of responses by research condition for overall appreciation of the expected assess-ment method at the end of lesson 10



Le 113 3.48 0.81 6.2 47.8 35.4 8.8 1.8 100

Mc 99 2.92 1.10 7.1 24.2 33.3 24.2 11.1 100

Ca 92 2.95 1.03 2.2 34.8 27.2 27.2 8.7 100

Pe 154 2.69 1.17 5.2 23.4 25.3 27.9 18.2 100

Po 103 3.21 1.14 9.7 39.8 21.4 20.4 8.7 100


Kruskall–Wallis test for research condition revealed statistically significant results (Chi-square = 37.34;df = 4; p \ 0.0001)

If the scale-scores are used, the Bonferonni comparisons reveal significant differences (a = 0.05) for:Le [ Ca, Mc, Pe and Po [ Pe


123

higher workloads and time pressures. For instance, Marcel (2003) and Sistek (1986)

showed convincingly that active teaching requires more time than conventional teaching

with, as a possible consequence, higher perceived workload. Moreover, the finding of

Gibbs (2006), that being explicit does not automatically result in being clear, tends to be

supported by the activating teaching format in the Clear Goals and Standards scale. Despite

the detailed descriptions of the aims and goals that were associated with each task and set

of assignments in the booklet, students were obviously insufficiently informed—or at least

not clear enough—about the purposes of the course as displayed by the CEQ. Clearly, the

complex nature of student-activating tasks (Perkins 1991) might add to the lack of clarity

of the activated setting. In addition, from students’ comments, we also learned that the

(exclusive) cooperative nature of the assignments posed problems for a group of students.

In accordance with the former results, Phipps and colleagues (2001) argue that these

methods might be perceived ineffective because they take more time and require more sets

of skills than studying lecture notes, thus explaining the high workloads reported in the

CEQ. However, other plausible explanations might be: (1) a student’s instructional pre-

ferences (Birenbaum 1997); (2) the dependence of an individual’s work and the scores on

others, apart from the teacher, makes students feel uncomfortable and uneasy (Clifford

1999); and (3) dysfunctional groups and associated group problems.

In general, the lecture-taught students experienced their course in more positive terms

than the students in the activated conditions for all scales in the CEQ. Interestingly, the

educational setting was credited with characteristics and advantages that it might not

explicitly aim for. For example, lectures were assigned high scores on the Generic Skills

and Independence scales, but these goals are not addressed or strived for in the lessons.

Inversely, if the positive relationship applies, then the opposite case might be also in force,

implying that, for example, if students experience the activating teaching methods nega-

tively, then the educational goals explicitly aimed for (such as Generic Skills and

Independence) are not recognised nor acknowledged. In fact, given the direct relationship

between students’ perceptions and student learning (Biller 1996; Entwistle 1991; Fraser

and Fisher 1983; Konings et al. 2005; Trigwell and Prosser 1991), the learning of students

who dislike the course on Child Development might be jeopardised. In this respect, future

research that distinguishes between supporters and opponents might explain differences in

students’ experiences, perceptions and student learning with respect to activating (and

teacher-directed) formats of teaching.

When the assessment methods within the activating treatment were studied, findings

were not always consistent with expectations. For example, although the peer assessment

(Pe) and portfolio (Po) students are required to invest more time and effort (i.e. higher

workloads might be expected) in the student-activating assignments, because the tasks had

to be handed in and had a determining influence on their final scores, the Course Exper-

ience Questionnaire showed significantly higher scores, only for the Portfolio group on the

General, Appropriate Assessment, Independence and Total scales as well as slightly higher

scores in comparison to the other conditions (Mc, Ca, Pe), on the Appropriate Workload

and Clear Goals scales. A plausible explanation is that, in contrast to the Case-based

examination (Ca) and the active Multiple-Choice test group (Mc) for whom the interim

efforts did not make a difference in course performance, students’ work in class counted

towards their final course marks. The assignments in the end-of-course-assessed groups

(Ca and Mc) were perceived to be additional work on top of the study requirements for the

examination. Due to the lack of consequences of students’ work and efforts during classes

on the course performance, students in the Case-based (Ca) and active Multiple-choice

(Mc) groups failed to (or at least were more unlikely to) acknowledge the alleged


123

advantages that students in the Portfolio (Po) assessment group saw. This finding is similar

to Anaya’s (1996) finding that learning was enhanced by student involvement in the

learning activities and environments that were most directly related to the learning out-

comes. Likewise, Concannon et al. (2005) found that the lecturer’s reward system

influenced students’ experiences with the teaching. In both conditions, the compounding

effect of workload (Chambers 1992; Kember 2004) was ‘eased’ by the performance

consequences of the assessment methods. The integration of the assessment method into

the teaching/learning environment, serving both formative and summative functions, again

deserves warm appreciation (Segers et al. 2003). However, this principle does not (fully)

apply to the Peer Assessment (Pe) condition. In fact, the Pe students indicated low(est)

scores on the General scale in the CEQ, and this condition was least appreciated by its

students at the end of the lessons. Here, the poor use of the peer assessment, in which the

formative function was not met by the teachers in this condition, tends to provide a

plausible explanation. Opportunities for adjustments in learning behaviour and group

processes were missed, and students lacked information about the performance conseq-

uences of the peer-assessment procedure. Moreover, students’ comments were consistent

with the results of Clifford (1999), who found that students resent staff not taking

responsibility and feeling unsure about their own and their peers’ abilities to grade work.

Similarly, students in the present study also highlighted reservations about favouritism for

friends and the misplaced ‘opportunism’ of some student colleagues in the teams. Con-

sequently, the use and quality of the assessment method elicited an important limitation of

the present study: conclusions might only apply to the instrument or tool that was used to

make the assessment method operational. Caution in generalising the findings to other

assessment methods is recommended. Replication of this study and verification of the

results are needed.

Although the abovementioned explanations provide ready arguments for the differences

in instructional and/or evaluation treatments, the results clearly demonstrate that the same

educational setting was able to trigger (significant) diverse students’ perceptions. In par-

ticular, students’ perceptions about the activating teaching methods displayed widespread

responses and contradictory opinions, possibly with different learning outcomes as a result.

For example, in the student-activating setting, more extreme positive arguments were

present and there were more negative arguments, when compared to the lecture-based

setting. Interestingly, the same arguments were used in both directions to explain positive

and negative opinions (such as collaboration being exclusively used; always new/inno-

vative; no lecturing) and some arguments contradict each other (such as good/poor variety

of teaching methods; learning about Child Development/lack of learning outcomes; and

challenging and fun/boring and not fun). Students’ comments clearly demonstrate that the

‘activated’ students were divided into supportive and opposing groups. In accordance with

Kember et al. (2004), it becomes clear that the presumption that students have consistent

views of what constitutes good teaching is wrong. Moreover, students do not necessarily

have a common view of good teaching. Conceptions of learning are important influences

towards differentiation (Entwistle and Tait 1990; Kember and Wong 2000; Van Rossum

and Taylor 1987). The authors distinguish between two extremes of learning conceptions,

from a reproductive pole to a self-determining conception of learning (Kember et al.

2003). Teacher evaluations are concordant; those students experiencing teaching incom-

patible with their beliefs could downgrade their rating of the instructor because they

perceive the teaching as poor; and vice versa in the compatible version (Kember et al.

2004). Rather than accepting this status quo, a more fruitful long-term strategy would be to

wean students gradually away from their teacher-centred beliefs by introducing measures


123

of more learner-centred teaching approaches. This exposure, however, needs to be handled

carefully (Kember 2001); ‘‘Throwing students in at the deep end is more likely to result in

sinking than swimming. Learning to swim is more likely to result if students are allowed to

start at the shallow end and swimming lessons are provided’’ (Kember et al. 2003, p. 250).

Obviously, future research is needed in order to confirm whether the student-activated

group or the non-supportive lecture-based group is more reproductive or self-determining

in their conceptions of learning and whether the inverse relationship applies for the

favouring students.

Matching students’ instructional preferences and teaching in order to design an edu-

cational setting conducive to learning might be considered. Although research has shown

that students prefer congruence between their learning habits and the characteristics of a

learning environment (Vermetten et al. 2002), relevant notions might be ‘congruence’ and

‘friction’ (Trigwell et al. 1999; Vermunt and Verloop 1999). Congruence occurs when

students’ learning strategies and teachers’ teaching strategies are compatible; friction

occurs when this is not the case. Two kinds of friction are discerned: constructive and

destructive. Constructive friction can stimulate students to employ learning and thinking

strategies that they have not used before, and hence give rise to an increase in the use of

those strategies (e.g. Trigwell et al. 1999). An example of this is the study of Kelly and

Tangney (2006), who explored the impact on learning performance when study material is

matched and mismatched with learning preferences and who found that learning gains

increased when students were provided with resources that they did not normally prefer.

Destructive friction, on the other hand, can occur when the distance between the level of

self-regulated learning that the teacher expects from the students, and the self-regulatory

skills that these students possess, is too great (Vermunt and Verloop 1999). This would be

an unsuccessful adaptation. Another often-observed routine to explain the more negative

results of the promising constructive theory and its applications is to attribute these results

to students’ difficulties in adapting during the transition from traditional lectures to acti-

vating, independent learning/teaching settings (Novak et al. 2006; Salamonson and Lantz

2005; Vermetten et al. 2002). Vermunt and Verloop (1999) argue that students often lack

the skills to cope with activating assignments (e.g. self-regulation skills), with negative

perceptions and learning outcomes as a consequence. Again, a gradual transition from

traditional teacher-directed settings towards a self-regulated activating setting ought to

offer a satisfactory solution. Students need time to adapt and steps to ease the transition

process (Kember 2001). Liow et al. (1993) also advocate that the best solution would be to

introduce active learning methods gradually in line with the way in which educational

objectives for courses change from year to year. Future research might serve the purpose of

providing empirical evidence for these explanations. In fact, quasi-experimental designs

that include a gradually implemented activating level and/or mixture of teacher-directed

and student-activating methods might add to our current understanding. However, a study

that allows time and support for adaptation would be ideal. Experimental designs, however,

make it hard to provide support for adaptation as the designs themselves are not meant to

be adapted (Kember 2003).

Additionally, future research might also overcome the limitations from which the

present study suffered. For instance, the results remain inconclusive about the characte-

ristics of students in both groups that might have triggered the differences in students’

perceptions. For example, students’ characteristics, such as educational history, concep-

tions of learning, intelligence, academic achievement and communicative skills, might

determine whether students like or dislike particular teaching methods. The same argu-

ments apply to the characteristics in the teaching/learning environment and the causality of


123

the processes that occurred. Students’ arguments might provide some indications or sug-

gest causal relationships, but the results of this study remain inconclusive. Future analyses

and research are recommended to pinpoint the characteristics of students and educational

settings and the causal relationships between the processes of teaching, students’ per-

ceptions and student learning.

Interestingly, in educational literature and policy, the independent, self-regulatory,

activated learner always tends to be the aim of current education. The strategy of

replacing traditional classroom settings with student-activating methods (sometimes

computer-mediated) is often strongly advocated by educationalists. However, perhaps

complementary views (taking into account students’ points of view) would be more

appropriate. Empirical studies explicitly support complementary usage of both tech-

niques. For instance, Michel (2001) assessed student and staff perceptions of a Web-

based tutorial on library research. In spite of positive views of the guide, students and

staff members were not strongly in favour of using the tutorial to replace traditional

library instruction. Likewise, Chisholm et al. (1996) found that all students perceived

that the computer-assisted instructional (CAI) program was a valuable learning experi-

ence and felt that it enhanced problem-solving skills. Notwithstanding the feeling of

enjoyment, students disagreed with the statement that the CAI program should be used in

place of traditional lectures and indicated that it should be used as a supplement to

lectures. The results of the current study also better support the complementary view of

using both teaching formats, instead of the replacement strategy. Students can differ in

many ways, including different conceptions of learning, different former experiences,

different social skills and assertiveness, different interests, different needs for support,

different instructional preferences and different academic capabilities. Although some

differences might be gradually or partially overcome, the diversity of students tends to

require a diversity of teaching methods as well. Actually, given the fundamental

importance of positive perceptions of teaching for learning (Biller 1996; Entwistle 1991;

Fraser and Fisher 1983; Konings et al. 2005; Trigwell and Prosser 1991), a varied

educational environment is likely to satisfy a larger number of students, and to be more

conducive to learning, than any one-sided approach. For instance, neither students who

require support and structure, nor students who are challenged by complex assignments,

are disadvantaged in a system that integrates the best of both worlds and uses a variety

of teaching methods (individual, in collaboration with fellow students, and in class

activities), acknowledging the advantages and disadvantages of both traditional and

innovative, activating teaching. As a matter of fact, students’ self-reported learning for

the Generic Skills and Independence scales was even higher in the lecture-taught setting.

Obviously, a student’s self-reported learning might differ from his/her actual learning

outcomes; however, it is the student’s perception that influences student learning (Ent-

wistle 1991) and, when students’ course experiences are positive or negative, student

learning is enhanced or jeopardised.

In conclusion, results support the need for students’ perceptions to be positive, but also

they suggest that, when students’ perceptions are positive, the educational setting can be

characterised with advantages that it does not (explicitly) aim for. Moreover, students who

experience the same educational setting might think quite differently about this environ-

ment. Although individual differences in beliefs and skills might generate divergent course

experiences, students’ arguments can serve as an interesting learning tool with which

educators can optimise current educational practices. A complementary view of teaching

tends to combine the best of both worlds and seems to best serve the majority and diversity

of students.


123

References

Anaya, G. (1996). College experiences and student learning: The influence of active learning, collegeenvironments and cocurricular activities. Journal of College Student Development, 37(6), 611–622.

Ballard, S., Stapleton, J., & Carroll, E. (2004). Students’ perceptions of course web sites used in face-to-faceinstruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 197–211.

Ben-Ari, R., & Eliassy, L. (2003). The differential effects of the learning environment on studentachievement motivation: A comparison between frontal and complex instruction strategies. SocialBehavior and Personality, 31(2), 143–165.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.Biller, J. (1996, October). Reduction of mathematics anxiety. Paper presented at the Annual National

Conference on Liberal Arts and Education of Artists, New York.Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum &

F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and priorknowledge: Evaluation in education and human services (pp. 3–29). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations.Higher Education, 33(1), 71–84.

Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: Procedural approaches to learning inengineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 605–615.

Chambers, E. (1992). Work-load and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2),141–154.

Chisholm, M. A., Dehoney, J., & Poirier, S. (1996). Development and evaluation of a computer-assistedinstructional program in an advanced pharmacotherapeutics course. American Journal of Pharma-ceutical Education, 6(4), 365–369.

Clifford, V. A. (1999). The development of autonomous learners in a university setting. Higher EducationResearch and Development, 18(1), 115–128.

Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality andbenefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501–512.

Davies, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2003). Reconsidering portfolios and research evidence. In M. Segers, F.Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities andstandards (pp. 141–170). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanentchallenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 249–266.

Dochy, F., Gijbels, D., & Segers, M. (2006). Learning and the emerging new assessment culture. In L.Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boeckaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, presentand future trends: Advances in learning and Instruction Series of EARLI (pp. 191–208). Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions offreshman about instruction. Journal of curriculum studies, 32(3), 421–444.

Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment: Introduction tothe special issue. Higher Education, 22, 201–204.

Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for

contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194.Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983). Student achievement as a function of person-environment fit:

A regression surface analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(1), 89–99.Gibbs, G. (2006, October). Changing assessment policy and practice in higher education through research.

Keynote presentation at the first European Practice Based and Practitioner Research Conference onLearning and Instruction, Belgium, Leuven.

Hayward, L. M., & Cairns, M. A. (2001). Allied health students’ perceptions of and experiences withinternet-based case study instruction. Journal of Allied Health, 30(4), 232–238.

Jacobson, T. E., & Mark, B. L. (1995). Teaching in the information age: Active learning techniques toempower students. Reference Librarian, 51–52, 105–120.

Janssens, S., Boes, W., & Wante, D. (2001). Portfolio: een instrument voor toetsing en begeleiding [Port-folio: An instrument for evaluation and coaching]. In F. Dochy, L. Heylen, & H. Van de Mosselaer(Eds.), Assessment in onderwijs [Assessment in Education] (pp. 203–224). Utrecht, The Netherlands:LEMMA.

Kelly, D., & Tangney, B. (2006). Adapting to intelligence profile in an adaptive educational system.Interacting with computers, 18(3), 385–409.


123

Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor inadjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 205–221.

Kember, D. (2003). To control or not to control: The question of whether experimental designs areappropriate for evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation inHigher Education, 28(1), 89–101.

Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of theirworkload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.

Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2003). Adult students’ perceptions of good teaching as a function oftheir conceptions of learning—Part 1. Influencing the development of self-determination. Studies inContinuing Education, 25(2), 240–251.

Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2004). Adult students’ perceptions of good teaching as a functionof their conceptions of learning—Part 2. Implications for the evaluation of teaching. Studies inContinuing Education, 26(1), 81–97.

Kember, D., & Wong, A. (2000). Implications for evaluation from a study of students’ perceptions of goodand poor teaching. Higher Education, 40(1), 69–97.

Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learningenvironments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660.

Liow, S. R., Betts, M., & Kok Leong Lit, J. (1993). Course design in higher education: A study of teachingmethods and educational objectives. Studies in Higher Education, 18(1), 65–79.

Maguire, S., Evans, S. E., & Dyas, L. (2001). Approaches to learning: A study of first-year geographyundergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25(1), 95–107.

Mansfield, B. (1989). Teaching social studies: Learning from past experiences. History and Social ScienceTeacher, 24(2), 87–88.

Marcel, K. W. (2003). Online advanced placement courses: Experiences of rural and low-income highschool students: WCALO special studies. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation. (Eric Document Reproduction Service, No. ED478377).

McNaughton, K., & Krentz, C. (2000). Reflections on constructivist practices in early childhood teachereducation. Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 8(2), 7–20.

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Incorporation.

Michel, S. (2001). What do they really think? Assessing student and faculty perspectives of a Web-basedtutorial to library research. College and Research Libraries, 62(4), 317–332.

Novak, S., Shah, S., Candidate, D., Wilson, J. P., Lawson, K. A., & Salzman, R. D. (2006). Pharmacystudents’ learning styles before and after a problem-based learning experience. American Journal ofPharmaceutical Education, 70(4), Article No. 74. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.ajpe.org/view.asp?art=aj700474&pdf=yes.

O’Leary, S., Diepenhorst, L., Churley-Strom, R., & Magrane, D. (2005). Educational games in an obstetricsand gynecology core curriculum. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193(5), 1848–1851.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance and teacher education applications. Pea-body Journal of Education, 72(1), 35–66.

Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands from learners. Educational technology, 31(9), 19–21.Perkins, D. V., & Saris, R. N. (2001). A ‘‘jigsaw classroom’’ technique for undergraduate statistics courses.

Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 111–113.Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’ perceptions of cooperative

learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14–21.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experiencequestionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

Richardson, D. (1997). Student perceptions and learning outcomes of computer-assisted versus traditionalinstruction in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 18(1), S55–S58.

Salamonson, Y., & Lantz, J. (2005). Factors influencing nursing students’ preference for a hybrid formatdelivery in a pathophysiology course. Nurse Education Today, 25(1), 9–16.

Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). ‘But is it fair?’: An exploratory study of student per-ceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4),349–371.

Schmidt, K. (2002). Classroom action research: A case study assessing students’ perceptions and learningoutcomes of classroom teaching versus on-line teaching. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,40(1), 45–59.


123

http://www.ajpe.org/view.asp?art=aj700474&pdf=yes

http://www.ajpe.org/view.asp?art=aj700474&pdf=yes

Segers, M. (2003). Evaluating the OverAll Test: Looking for multiple validity measures. In M. Segers, F.Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities andstandards (pp. 119–140). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Segers M., Dochy F., & Cascallar E. (Eds.). (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: In search ofqualities and standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: Theinfluence on students’ perceptions of the assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies inEducational Evaluation, 32(3), 223–242.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Sistek, V. (1986, June). How much do our students learn by attending lectures? Paper presented at the

annual conference of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Guelph, ON,Canada.

Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and itseffects on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4),381–389.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need toknow. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

Sobral, D. T. (1995). The problem-based learning approach as an enhancement factor of personal mea-ningfulness of learning. Higher Education, 29(1), 93–101.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment inhigher education: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341.

Struyven, K., Sierens, E., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Groot worden: De ontwikkeling van baby totadolescent [Growing: The development from baby to adolescent] (Course book for prospectiveteachers). Leuven, Belgium: LannooCampus.

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(2),87–111.

Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 31(2), 195–199.

Tillema, H., & Smith, K. (2000). Learning from portfolios: Differential use of feedback in portfolio con-struction. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 193–210.

Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school, university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M.Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualitiesand standards (pp. 55–88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learningcontext and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251–266.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching andstudents’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.

Tynjala, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learningenvironments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–292.

Van Rossum, E. J., & Taylor, I. P. (1987, April). The relationship between conceptions of learning and goodteaching: A scheme of cognitive development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Vermetten, Y., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How uni-versity students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12(3),263–284.

Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 68(2), 149–171.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learningand Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Constructivism as a scientific method. Scientific Reasoning Research InstituteNewsletter, 3(2), 8–9.

Waters, L., & Johnston, C. (2004). Web-delivered, problem-based learning in organisational behaviour: Anew form of CAOS. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 413–431.

Welker, J., & Berardino, L. (2005). Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditionalclassroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 33–55.

White, C. (1996). Merging technology and constructivism in teacher education. Teacher Education andPractice, 12(1), 62–70.


123

Wierstra, R. F. A., Kanselaar, G., Van der Linden, J. L., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & Vermunt, J. D. (2003).The impact of the university context on European students’ learning approaches and learningenvironment preferences. Higher Education, 45(4), 503–523.

Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches tolearning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, 30(1), 87–101.

Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the CourseExperience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.

Woo, M. A., & Kimmick, J. V. (2000). Comparison of Internet versus lecture instructional methods forteaching nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16(3), 132–139.


123

students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: the added value of students’...

Documents