effects of constructivist learning environments || constructivist learning environments and the...

14
Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning Author(s): David Gijbels, Mien Segers and Elke Struyf Source: Instructional Science, Vol. 36, No. 5/6, Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments (SEPTEMBER 2008), pp. 431-443 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23372649 . Accessed: 28/06/2014 13:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Instructional Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: mien-segers-and-elke-struyf

Post on 01-Feb-2017

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptionsof assessment demands and approaches to learningAuthor(s): David Gijbels, Mien Segers and Elke StruyfSource: Instructional Science, Vol. 36, No. 5/6, Effects of Constructivist LearningEnvironments (SEPTEMBER 2008), pp. 431-443Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23372649 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 13:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Instructional Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Instr Sei (2008) 36:431-443 DOI 10.1007/sl 1251-008-9064-7

Constructivist learning environments and the

(im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning

David Gijbels • Mien Segers • Elke Struyf

Published online: 19 August 2008 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Recent research shows that, as students interpret the demands of the assessment

tasks, they vary their approaches to learning in order to cope with the assessment tasks.

Three research questions are central in the present paper: (1) Do students who participate in

a constructivist learning environment change their perception of assessment demands

towards more deep level demands? (2) Do students in a constructivist learning environ

ment change their approaches to learning towards a more deep approach to learning? (3) Is

there a relation between change in approaches to learning and change in the perceptions of

the assessment demands? Students following the course 'Education and psychology' of the

teacher training program at the University of Antwerp completed questionnaires during the

first, the second and the final lesson of the course. One questionnaire measured their

approaches to learning and the other their general perceptions of the assessment demands.

The course 'Education and psychology' can be labelled as a 'constructivist learning environment' with congruent assessment methods. Results of the paired sampled t-tests

indicated that students indeed do change their perceptions of assessment demands towards

more deep level demands. However, the results also indicated that students did not change their approach to learning towards a more deep approach. On the contrary, students seem to

develop more surface approaches to learning during the course. Correlation analyses indicated that only changes of perceptions of assessment demands towards less surface

levels are significantly related to changes in approaches to learning, towards a more surface

approach. Results of the stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated that students'

approach to learning at the beginning of the course seems to have a higher impact on the

D. Gijbels (El) • E. Struyf Institute for Education and Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]

M. Segers Department of Educational Sciences, University of Leiden, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands

M. Segers Department of Educational Research and Development, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

432 D. Gijbels et al.

extent to which they change their approach to learning than how students perceive the

demands of the assessment within the course. These results point us to the complexity of

the relationship between the learning environment, the students' perceptions of assessment

demands, and students' approaches to learning.

Keywords Constructivism ■ Assessment demands ■ Approaches to learning

Perceptions

An important challenge for today's higher education remains the development and

implementation of teaching practices that will foster in students the skill to acquire and

apply their knowledge efficiently, think critically, analyse, synthesise, and make inferences

(Tynjälä 2008). It is said that students should adopt more deep approaches to learning in

order to achieve these goals. Overall, it is claimed that 'new' learning environments have

the potential to improve these educational outcomes for students in higher education by

making the students' learning the core issue and defining instruction as enhancing learning

(Dart 1997; Lea et al. 2003). The concept of the deep approach to learning is associated

with searching for meaning in the task and integration of task aspects into a whole. This

kind of learning is driven by an intrinsic motivation to seek meaning and understanding.

The concept of surface approach to learning refers to students that learn by memorizing

and reproducing the factual contents of the study materials without seeking for further

connections, meaning, or the implications of what is learned. This approach is driven by an

extrinsic motivation to gain a paper qualification or a reward (Biggs 1987; Marton and

Säljö 1976). Marton and Säljö (1976) assumed that learning approaches are not stable psychological

traits and that students adjust their approaches to learning, depending on the requirements

of the task. Although, as Biggs (1993) suggests, students might have a predisposition to

either deep or surface learning approaches in general, research has indeed shown that this

preferred approach can be modified by the learning environment for individual courses or

for particular tasks (Ramsden 1984). There is a general consensus that one of the most

salient contextual variables that influence students' approaches to learning is the assess

ment method (Crooks and Mahalski 1985; Ramsden 1992; Scouller and Prosser 1994;

Thomas and Bain 1984). Students can shift between surface and deep approaches to suit

the assessment demands of their courses (Newble and Jaeger 1983; Ramsden 1979;

Thomas and Bain 1984; Wilson and Fowler 2005). It appears that although students have a

preferred approach to learning and enter a course with specific intentions of applying their

preferred approaches to learning, they vary their approach according to their perceptions of

the assessment demands. As students interpret the demands of the assessment tasks they

consciously or subconsciously vary their approaches to learning in order to cope with the

assessment tasks. This is often referred to as the backwash-effect of assessment (Segers

et al. 2006). If a particular assessment is perceived to require just passive acquisition and

accurate reproduction of details students will employ a surface approach to learning with

low-level cognitive strategies such as rote learning and concentrating on facts and details

while preparing for the assessment. When assessment is perceived to require high-level

cognitive processing to demonstrate a thorough understanding, integration and application

of the context knowledge, then students are more likely to engage a deep approach to

learning in order to accomplish the task.

â Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments 433

Prior research on the relation between perceptions of assessment demands

and approaches to learning

Up till now, only a few studies have presented empirical evidence for the relation between

students' perceptions of assessment demands and their approaches to learning (e.g., Tang

1994; Scouller 1996; Segers et al 2006). A case in point is the study by Tang (1994). She

conducted a study in the Physiotherapy Section at the Hong Kong Polytechnic, in the

subject of Integrated Professional Studies with first-year students (N = 158). The assess

ment of this subject has traditionally been by written tests consisting of short essay

questions (test condition). In order to steer students' learning towards higher level cog nitive preparation strategies, course assignments have been introduced (assignment

condition). Students' approaches to learning at the beginning of the academic year were

measured by the Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs 1987). Additionally, after each

assignment, the task-specific Assessment Preparation Strategies Questionnaire (Tang 1994)

was administered. A qualitative study consisted of interviews of 39 randomly selected

students from the sample. The aim was to explore their perceptions of the assessment

demands and effects on the adoption of preparation strategies. Path analysis for the test

condition demonstrated congruence between the students' approaches to learning and their

assessment preparation strategies. "Those students who were surface-oriented were more

likely to employ low-level strategies when studying for the test, while those who were

normally deep-oriented had a higher tendency to employ high-level preparation strategies

"(Tang 1994, p. 6). The interviews indicated that deep-oriented students were not disad

vantaged in this condition of assessment as they adapted to the perceived low-level

demands of the test and orchestrated their approach to learning by adopting surface

learning strategies with 'deep intentions' in order to succeed for the test. The patterns of

relationships for the assignment condition were different from that of the test condition.

There was a relative lack of relationship between the students' approaches to learning at

the beginning of the year and the subsequent adoption of preparation strategies in writing

assignments. Tang (1994) suggests that writing assignments is a new experience for most

of these first-year students and therefore they cannot readily rely on their approaches to

learning they usually make use of when handling a task ('habitual'approaches to learning). "Under such circumstances, their motives, whether extrinsic, intrinsic or achieving, become a more relevant reference for the decision for the actual strategies to be employed"

(Tang 1994, p. 8). The results of the interviews demonstrated that high-level strategies such

as understanding, application of information, relating to other subjects, and previous

knowledge are requirements perceived to be necessary for both assessment conditions.

However, low-level strategies such as rote learning, memorisation, and reproduction were

perceived to be relevant only to the test condition.

The study of Scouller (1996) was related to Tang's study as it focussed on students'

approaches to learning related to the mode of assessment implemented. Scouller (1996)

investigated through questionnaires students' approaches to learning (classified as either

deep or surface) and their perceptions of the intellectual abilities or skills being assessed (classified as lower or higher) within two assessment contexts of the same

course: An assignment essay and an end-of-course short answer examination. The

sample consisted of 140 first-year Sociology students at the University of Sydney. The

main findings reveal that the assessment method strongly influenced the way these

students learned and prepared their assessment tasks. The patterns that emerged were

much more straightforward than those in the study of Tang (1994). The Sociology students were much more likely to employ surface approaches to learning when

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

434 D. Gijbels et al.

preparing for their short answer examinations than when preparing their assignment

essays. In contrast, when writing their assignment essays these students were signifi

cantly more likely to employ deep approaches to learning than when preparing for their

short answer examinations. Finally, these students were significantly more likely to

perceive the short answer examination as assessing lower levels of intellectual abilities

and skills than the assignment essay. In contrast, students were more likely to perceive

the assignment essay as assessing higher levels of intellectual abilities and skills such

as analysis and synthesis than their short answer examination. Probably—in any case

more than the Hong Kong students in the study of Tang (1994)—we assume that these

students have prior experiences with different modes of assessment, including assign

ments and therefore can rely on habitual strategies to handle the assignments and thus

to be strategic in their approach to learning.

A recent study of Segers et al. (2006) further explored the conditions for assessment

to steer learning within a second year 'international business strategy' course at the

University of Maastricht in The Netherlands, by investigating the impact of the imple

mentation of an OverAll Test. An OverAll Test is case-based and intends to measure the

extent to which students are able to use knowledge (models, theories) to define, analyse,

and solve authentic problems. More than in the aforementioned studies, explicit attention

is paid to the alignment of learning, instruction, and assessment. In the course under

study, the OverAll Test was implemented as an integral part of a redesigned learning

environment. The main differences between the original and the redesigned learning

environment are the format of the learning tasks (study tasks in the original course and

problem tasks in the redesigned course) and the mode of assessment (a knowledge

reproduction test in the original course and a combination of a knowledge reproduction

test and an OverAll test in the redesigned course). In order to unravel the mechanism

through which assessment steers learning, two variables, indicated as relevant in the

aforementioned studies, were taken into account: Students' intended approaches to

learning as an indicator for their general approaches to learning at the beginning of the

course (Tang 1994) and their perceptions of the assessment demands, (Tang 1994;

Scouller 1996). Two questions were central: (1) When comparing the original assign

ment-based course (N = 406 students) and the redesigned problem-based learning

environment (N = 312 students), is there a change in the students' intended approaches

to learning, their perceptions of the assessment demands and their actual approaches to

learning at the end of the course?; (2) What is the association between these three

variables in both conditions, the original and the redesigned learning environment? To

measure students' perceptions of the assessment demands the Scouller Perceptions of the

Assessment Demands Questionnaire (Scouller and Prosser 1994) was used. Students'

intended and actual approaches to learning were measured with the Study Process

Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs 1987). The results indicated that, in contradiction with the

expectations, the students in the original course actually adopted more deep approaches

to learning and less surface approaches to learning than the students in the redesigned

course. Although the students were informed about the differences in the various course

information resources, there were no significant differences between both groups of

students in the approaches to learning they intended to employ as well as in their

perceptions of the assessment demands. The study concludes that more research, also in

other contexts, is needed to study and understand the complex relation between the

students' perceptions of the demands of new modes of assessment and their intended and

actual approaches to learning.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments 435

The present study

The present study intends to build on the findings of the studies mentioned above. It starts

from the perspective that student learning approaches are adaptable to change. The

research presented focuses on students' change in learning approaches and in perceptions of the assessment demands when they enter a constructivist learning environment. It

questions how change in learning approaches is related to their initial approaches to

learning, their perceptions of assessment demands as they enter a course (general per

ceptions), and their perceptions of the assessment demands when confronted with new

modes of assessment implemented in the course. The study is conducted in a university teacher training course where a constructivist learning environment is implemented.

Three research questions guide the present study:

1) Do students who participate in a constructivist learning environment change their

perception of assessment demands towards more deep level demands?

2) Do students in a constructivist learning environment change their approaches to

learning towards a more deep approach to learning?

3) To what extent are students' changes in approaches to learning related to students'

change in the perceptions of the assessment demands?

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were the students following the course 'Education and

psychology' of the teacher training programme at the University of Antwerp, Flanders,

Belgium. The research instruments were administered to the students during the first

(initial approaches to learning, n = 197), the second (perceptions of assessment demands, n = 160) and the final lesson (actual approaches to learning and perceptions of assessment

demands, n = 180) of the course. As the study investigates the development of approaches to learning and perceptions of assessment demands, only students who participated on each

of the measurements were included in the data analysis. A total of 67 students completed all instruments or filled in a readable student ID number, on the basis of which the different

instruments could be matched. Of these students 67.1% were female and 32.9% were male

students. The course was also available as an in-service course; 73.1% were regular pre service students, 26.9 % were in-service students (already working). The mean age of the

students was 24 (SD = 6.65).

The education and psychology course

The research was carried out within the context of a compulsory course 'Education and

psychology (3 ECTS, 7 weeks). This course in the university teacher training programme can be labelled as a 'constructivist learning environment'. We see constructivism as an

umbrella term that groups learning perspectives with the same basic assumption about

learning: Namely the understanding that knowledge is actively constructed by the learner

(Birenbaum 2003; Harris and Alexander 1998; Tynjälä 1999). The 'Educational and

psychology' course can be labelled as a student-centred 'constructivist' learning envi

ronment in which a blend of active learning and congruent assessment environments is

Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

436 D. Gijbels et al.

created for the students: Guided self-study, activating lectures, two authentic group

assignments, and two individual assignments. The 7 weeks of the course were designed as

follows: Before the first session, the students were asked to study the open learning

material by themselves. During the first (plenary) session, the teacher presented some cases

and discussed possible solutions with the students, based on the theory described in the

open-learning material. During that first lesson a small lecture was given on how to create

active learning materials for students in secondary education. Near the end of the first

session, the students were divided in groups of 5 or 6 students and were given two

authentic group assignments (-1- prepare a lesson for your peers on a given topic related to

the psychology of adolescents and -2- design 4 subsequent 'lessons' for students in sec

ondary education making use of active learning materials) on which they could work

during sessions 2 and 3. The teacher was available for feedback during these sessions.

Session 6 was used for a guest-lecture about how to deal with difficulties in the classroom.

Sessions 4, 5 and 7 were used to actually 'give' the lessons they prepared (peer-to-peer

teaching). Teacher-feedback and peer-feedback was given on the peer-to-peer teachings

during these lessons.

The assessment during this course was designed to be in alignment with the instruc

tional goals and approach. This implies the students were assessed by means of the 2

authentic group assignments, an individual observation assignment, and an individual self

reflection assignment. The two authentic group assignments were exactly these two

assignments mentioned above students have been working on during the course in sessions

2 and 3. They were assessed based on the written preparation of the lesson they had given

themselves (students had the opportunity to rework these preparations after they had given

the lesson) and on the written preparation for the 4 subsequent lessons for students in

secondary education, making use of active learning materials. In the individual observation

assignment students had to write an observation report about the lessons they observed

from their peers in sessions 4, 5 and 7. In the individual self-reflection assignment, the

students needed to reflect critically about what they had learned personally from working

in a group of 5 or 6 students on the 4 subsequent lessons-group assignment. Students had to

hand in all assignments 3 weeks after the final session.

Of further importance is that the teacher training program at the university in Flanders

can only be started after the student reached the bachelor degree in his or her discipline.

Furthermore, students can only graduate in the program after they graduate as a master in

their initial discipline (e.g., law, science, economics, ...). Given the teacher-centred nature

of the courses at the university in which this study took place (see e.g., Stes et al. 2008), we

assume that for most students, the highly constructivist, student-centred teaching approach

in the teacher training programme was a new experience.

Research instruments

The R-SPQ-2F is a refined version of Biggs' (1987) original Study Process Questionnaire

(SPQ). In the theoretical framework of the SPQ, three approaches to learning (surface,

deep, and achieving) are proposed, each with a motive and strategy subscale. Kember and

Leung (1998) conducted a study with over 7000 Hong Kong students which investigated

the construct and internal reliability of the SPQ. The results indicated that a model with

two factors had the best fit. Other studies, including cross-cultural research, have also

shown that a two factor solution with a deep and a surface approach, rather than the initial

three factor solution, accounted for most of the variance (Snelgrove and Slater 2003;

Watkins and Regmi 1996; Zhang 2000). Biggs et al. (2001) accordingly refined the SPQ.

•£) Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments 437

Table 1 Item examples and reliabilities of used R-SPQ-2F and ADQ-scales

Scale Item example Condition Cronbach's

alpha

Deep approach I related material, as I was reading it, to what I Pre-test .652

already knew on that topic Post-test .802

Surface approach I learned some things by rote, going over Pre-test .740 them until I knew them by heart Post-test .760

Assessment of deep I expect the test to assess my ability to Pre-test .590

learning levels integrate from a variety of resources Post-test .741

Assessment of surface I expect the test to assess my ability Pre-test .789

learning levels to reproduce key terms and definitions Post-test .841

The revised two factor SPQ is scored on a five-point Likert scale and categorizes students

into two different types of approaches to learning. These are 'surface learning approaches'

(referring to students' intentions to learn by memorizing and reproducing the factual

contents of the study materials) and 'deep learning approaches' (associated with students'

intentions to understand and construct the meaning of the content to be learned). An

example of an item for both scales is presented in Table 1.

The ADQ is developed and validated in higher education by Scouller and Prosser

(1994). The reliability of its scales is confirmed in other studies (e.g., Segers et al. 2006). It contains twelve questions on a five-point Likert scale. Two scales result from this ques tionnaire: One for low-level surface skills and one for high-level deep skills of intellectual

processing. An example of an item for both scales is presented in Table 1.

Procedure

The revised study-process-questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F, Biggs et al. 2001) was used during the first and the final lesson respectively to measure their initial and actual approaches to

learning. The Assessment Demands Questionnaire (ADQ, Scouller and Prosser 1994) was

used during the first and the second lesson respectively to measure students' general

perceptions of the assessment demands and their perceptions of assessment demands for

the present course. Since the teacher explained the method of assessment for the course

during the first lecture, students' perceptions of the assessment demands for the present course were measured during the second lecture.

Results

First, the reliability of the scales used in this study was computed. The reliability for the

different scales based on the pre-test and the post-test, measured by Cronbach's alpha, are

presented in Table 1. The reliability for the different scales was deemed sufficient for the

purpose of this research, although the ADQ-scale 'assessment of deep learning levels'

resulted in a rather low Cronbach's alpha for the pre-test (alpha = .59).

Tables 2 and 3 present the descriptive statistics for the variables measured as well as for

the 'change variables'. The results in Table 2 indicate that, when entering the course,

students adopt more a deep than a surface approach. Also at the end of the course, students

adopt more deep than surface approaches. In general, they perceive the assessment

â Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

438 D. Gijbels et al.

Table 2 Results of the paired samples t-tests for students' preferences of assessment demands and

approaches to learning

Variable Condition Mean SD t df P

1. Deep approach to learning Pre-test 2.79 .62 -.01 66 .992

Post-test 2.79 .58

2. Surface approach to learning Pre-test 2.24 .51 -1.93 66 .057

Post-test 2.38 .57

3. Assessment of deep learning levels Pre-test 3.25 .61 6.36 66 .000

Post-test 3.88 .61

4. Assessment of surface learning levels Pre-test 3.69 .56 8.839 66 .000

Post-test 2.73 .79

Table 3 Means, Standard deviations, and correlation matrix for differences between post-test and pre-test

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Change deep learning approach .01 .53 1 -.259* .000 -.153

2. Change surface learning approach .14 .60 1 -.151 .256*

3. Change perceptions deep assessment demands .62 .80 1 -.231

4. Change perceptions surface assessment demands -.96 .88 I

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level

demands as more surface than deep. However, for the course Education and psychology,

they perceive the assessment demands as more deep than surface.

On average, the change in deep learning approaches is close to zero (see also Table 3),

although there are differences between students (SD = .53). The change in surface

approaches to learning is more clear, although also here students seem to differ in the extent

of change (SD = .60). With respect to students' perceptions of the assessment demands,

there is a change towards the perception of less surface and more deep assessment demands.

Also here there are differences between the students which are relatively high (as indicated

by the standard deviation of respectively .80 for change in perception of deep assessment

demands and .88 for change in perceptions of surface assessment demands).

To assess whether the changes in learning approaches and perceptions of assessment

demands were significant, paired sample t-tests were used.

The results (see Table 2) of the paired sampled t-tests partly meet the expectations:

They indicate that students indeed do change their perceptions of assessment demands

towards more deep level demands and less surface level demands. However the results also

indicated that students did not change their approach to learning towards a more deep

approach. On the contrary, students seem to develop more surface approaches to learning

during the course (p < .10).

In order to gain insight into the relations between the variables discerned, a correlation

analysis was conducted. The Pearson correlation coefficients in Table 3 indicated that, as

expected, changes in deep approaches are negatively correlated to changes in surface

approaches to learning (r = —259,/? < .05). Moreover, the change in students perceptions

of surface assessment demands was significantly correlated to students' changes in

approaches to learning (r = .256, p < .05). Knowing that the change in students' per

ceptions of surface assessment demands was a negative one, this indicates that the more

Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments 439

Table 4 Regression analyses with dependent variables change in deep learning approach and change in surface learning approach

Beta T

Change in deep learning approach

Initial deep learning approach —.544 —5.288 .000

R = .544, R2 = .296, F(1.66) = 27.333, p = .000

Change in surface learning approach

Initial surface learning approach —.468 —4.418 .000

Change perceptions surface assessment demands .229 2.158 .035

R = .533, R2 = .284, F(2.66) = 12.682, p = .000

students perceive the assessment as an assessment demanding less surface learning, the

more students seem to develop surface approaches to learning. In order to better understand students' change in learning approaches, we conducted

stepwise multiple regression analyses. We analyzed how much variance in students'

change in deep and surface approaches can be explained by their initial learning approa ches and their general perceptions of the assessment demands. The results of the regression

analyses are displayed in Table 4. The results indicate that 29.6% of the variance in

students' (lack of) change in deep learning approach can be explained by students' initial

deep learning approach. Accordingly, students' change in surface learning approaches is

significantly influenced by their initial surface learning approach. The change in surface

learning approach is also influenced by the change in perception of surface assessment

demands. Together they explain 28.4% of the variance in students' change in surface

approaches to learning. It seems, however, that the learning approach students make use of

when entering the course has a higher impact on the extent to which they change their

learning approach, than how they perceive the demands of the assessment within this

course. More specifically, the negative beta coefficients as reported in Table 4 indicate that

the stronger the students' initial learning approach is in terms of deep or surface, the less

students adapt their learning approach.

Conclusions and discussion

In this study we tried to find an answer to three questions with-at first sight- mixed results.

The first question can be answered positively: students indeed do change their perceptions of assessment demands towards a more deep level assessment. This, however, did not

imply that students also changed their approach to learning towards a more deep approach. On the contrary, students seem to develop more surface approaches to learning during the

course. The answer to the second question 'Do students participating in a constructivist

learning environment change their approaches to learning towards a more deep approach?' seems to be clear: no. Finally, the answer to the question how students' changes in

approaches to learning are related to students' change in the perception of the assessment

demands indicates that the more students expect an assessment that assesses less surface

levels, the more they seem to change their approach to learning towards a more surface

approach to learning. Furthermore, to explain students' changes in learning approaches, the

initial learning approaches students use, seem to have a relative strong impact on how they

approach their learning in a specific course, no matter the characteristics of the course.

Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

440 D. Gijbels et al.

Moreover, on average, there is hardly any change in the adoption of a deep learning

approach, although the differences between students seem to be important to consider.

However, there is a clear change towards the adoption of a more surface approach to

learning. Also in this case, there seem to be important differences between students. This

result refers to the debate on the extent of variability of students' learning approaches.

Although strange at first side, our results confirm to some extent the findings of prior research. First, there is the question of how feasible it is to change students' learning

approach towards more deep learning. The findings in the study by Marton and Säljö

(1997) suggest that it is obviously easy to induce a surface approach. Attempting to induce

a deep approach, however, was profoundly more difficult. This is also evidenced in the

Nijhuis et al. (2005), Struyven et al. (2006) studies indicating that attempts to deepen students' approaches to learning did not meet the expectations. It might be questioned to

what extent other elements of the learning environment as indicated in the Entwistle and

Ramsden (1983); Trigwell and Presser (1991); Nijhuis et al (2005) studies mediate the

relation between students' perceptions of the assessment demands and their learning

approaches. The Entwistle and Ramsden study as well as the Trigwell and Presser study

showed that a perceived heavy workload and less freedom in learning were related to a

surface approach. Moreover, they found that perceived good teaching, clear goals, and

more freedom in learning were related to a deep approach. A more recent study of Nijhuis

et al. (2005), evidenced the influence of three elements of the perceived learning envi

ronment on their learning strategies: The clarity of the goals, the appropriateness of the

workload, and the usefulness of the literature. When students perceive these elements as

negative, they are inclined to employ surface learning strategies. The relationship between

a perceived higher study load and the use of deeper approaches to learning has also been

found by Struyven et al. (2006). This study confirmed that the perceived quality of the

learning environment influences students' approaches to learning and that the educational

setting, as experienced by students, holds crucial information which is necessary to

understand students' learning. It might be questioned whether in our study the students

perceived the workload of their course as too high and whether they consequently adopted

more surface approaches to learning? First, as many students have successful experiences

with assessment focussing on low-level cognitive skills in their prior education, being

confronted with assessment demanding higher-order thinking skills might evoke stress in

terms of experiencing a high workload to meet these demands. Second, students had to

perform a lot of self-study activities and were involved in peer-to-peer teaching, all of them

learning activities which were novel to many of the students. For students having studied

for 3 or 4 years in a rather traditional way, this way of teaching can be perceived as not

only causing 'heavy workload' for students, but (despite the efforts of the teacher) also

having unclear goals (the teacher is not telling everything himself). The tight program

schedule where the self-study and teaching activities had to be performed in a short period

of time with strict deadlines could induce less freedom in learning.

Second, there is the issue of differences between students in the variability of their

learning approaches. The results of a study of Nijhuis et al. (2008) revealed that two groups

of students can be discerned with respect to the variability of learning approaches: A

restricted one and a variable one. The restricted group was characterized by low variability

in deep as well as surface learning; the variable group had high variability in deep as well

as surface learning. Our results suggest that students indeed differ in the extent of change

in approaches as well as perceptions. For future research, it would be interesting to explore

if the clustering of students in different groups of students with respect to the variability in

learning approaches as resulted from the Nijhuis et al. study (2008) can be confirmed.

Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments 441

Finally, some remarks should be made which would suggest that the conclusions of this

study should not be 'overstated' until the findings are repeatedly found, with more stringent

safeguards against other confounding factors. First, the relatively small match (/V = 67)

between students having completed both the pre- and post-test for the different research

instruments could be a problem. Since the sample of students in both the pre- and post-test conditions consisted of students who were attending the lesson in which the questionnaires were administered, the difference in number between the post-test and the pre-test is not

surprising. Near the end of a course and closer to the summative examination, it is not

unusual that fewer students attend the courses. In addition, the readability of the ID

numbers, on the basis of which the different questionnaires (pre- and post) were matched,

caused problems in a few cases. Second, this study has been conducted in the specific context of one course in a university teaching training program. Subsequent studies in

different contexts might indicate whether the results of this study can be generalized to

other contexts. Third, although the results of the survey study indicate statistical rela

tionships between initial approaches to learning and changes in approaches to learning, the

argumentation that students use in weighing the various pro's and con's for the adoption and adaptation of a specific approach to learning remain unclear. A qualitative approach

using interviews with students might help ascertain the argumentation in the decision

making process. Fourth, we have chosen to use questionnaires as the instrument for

determining factors influencing learning approaches. Although these questionnaires have

been validated in higher educational settings and are therefore reliable measures, they are

self-reports. As research on self-assessment suggests the prevalence of over- and under

rating (Ross 1998), the reliability of self-reports can be problematic. In our study,

especially the reliability in the pre-test for the assessment of deep learning levels scale was

not so high (.590). Thus, a multi-method approach to measuring learning approaches may be preferable. Such multi-methods may include the use of the thinking-aloud during stu

dent teacher reflection concerning progress on a learning task and also the observation of

student teachers while working on a learning task. Finally, in this study, the course took

only 7 weeks. It might be questioned if this period is not too short to expect changes towards a more deep approach to learning. The reasoning of Curry (2000), that learning

concepts closest to the learning environment are the most likely to be sensitive to change,

might explain the change in perceptions and not in learning approaches. The dissonance in

students' perceptions and approaches can be interpreted as an indicator for this sleeper effect: Students probably need time to get used to the new approach and to adapt both their

perceptions and study approaches. In order to measure sleeper effects, future research

needs longitudinal designs, measuring change in perceptions of the assessment demands,

and of students' approaches to learning. To conclude, the results of this study point to us the complexity of the relationship

between the learning-assessment environment, the students' perceptions of assessment

demands, and students' approaches to learning. Implementing a constructivist learning and

assessment environment does not directly lead to a change students' approaches towards

more deep learning. Our results indicate that the power of (the perceived) assessment to

steer learning is both limited and complex.

References

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Edu cational Research.

ö Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

442 D. Gijbels et al.

Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of student learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.

Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R

SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.

Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M.

Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search for qualities, standards (pp. 13-36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Crooks, T. J., & Mahalski, P. A. (1985). Relationships among assessment practices, study methods, and

grades obtained. Research and Development in Higher Education, 8, 234-240.

Curry, L. (2000). Individual differences in cognitive style, learning style and instructional preference in medical education. In G. Norman, C. van der Vleuten & D. Newble (Eds.), International handbook of research in medical education (pp. 263-276). London: Kluwer.

Dart, B. (1997). Adult learners' metacognitive behaviour in higher education. In P. Sutherland (Ed.), Adult

learning: A reader (pp. 30-43). London: Kogan Page. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 115-127.

Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with

confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 68, 395—407.

Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D„ & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes toward student-centred

learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 321-334.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II. Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed.).

Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.

Newble, D. I., & Jaeger, K. (1983). The effects of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Medical Education, 17, 165-171.

Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student

perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environment Research, S(l), 67-93.

Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). The extent of variability in learning strategies and students'

perceptions of the learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 2, 121-134.

Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411—427.

Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The

experience of learning (pp. 144-163). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential

factors. Language Testing, 15, 1-20.

Scouller, K. (1996). July Influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches, perceptions and

preferences: The assignment essay versus the short answer examination. Paper presented at the 1996 HERDSA Conference, Perth, Australia. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from, http://www.herdsa.org.au/ confs/1996/scouller.htm!.

Scouller, K, & Presser, M. (1994). Students' experiences in studying for multiple choice question exam inations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267-279.

Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: The influence on students' perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 223—242.

Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process ques tionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43, 496-505.

Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to learning in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55, 255-267.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students'

approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning & Instruction, 16, 279-294.

Tang, C. (1994). Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation strategies. In G. Gibbs (Ed.),

Improving student learning: Theory and practice (pp. 151-170). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff

Development. Retrieved May 14, 2005, from. http://teaching.polyu.edu.hk/datafiles/R126.pdf.

Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: Effects of Constructivist Learning Environments || Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches

Constructivist learning environments 443

Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessment. Human Learning, 3, 227-240.

Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on

campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275.

Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional

learning environment in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 355-442.

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, doi:

10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001. Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: a cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. J. Sternberg

& L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspective on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1996). Toward the cross-cultural validation of a Western model of student

approaches to learning. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 547-560.

Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to

learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 85-99.

Zhang, L. F. (2000). University students' learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs 3P model. Journal of Psychology, 134, 37-56.

Springer

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:48:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions