approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment marlies...
TRANSCRIPT
Approaches to learning and assessment preferences
in a portfolio-based learning environment
Marlies Baeten
Filip Dochy
Katrien Struyven
K.U.Leuven, Belgium
Introduction
• Society today demands life-long learners and professional experts
Deep approach to learning • Intention: to understand, to distil meaning• Strategy: to relate ideas, to look for patterns
• How?– Constructivist teaching methods– Innovative assessment
Introduction
• Constructivist teaching methods• Constructive• Cumulative• Self-regulated• Goal-oriented• Situated• Collaborative• Individually different
Introduction
• Innovative assessment• Increasing responsibility of the student• Numerous measures• Higher order-skills• Multiple dimensions of intelligence• Authentic and contextualised• Integration of assessment in the learning process
e.g. portfolio assessment (this study)
Introduction
• Empirical findings– Stimulating deep approaches
Mixed results
One plausible explanation:
Combination of constructivist design principles and lectures??
• The current research– Combination of constructivist design principles and
lectures in a portfolio-based learning environment– Taking into account students’ assessment preferences
Research questions
• Do students’ approaches to learning change in a portfolio-based learning environment?
• Do students’ assessment preferences change in a portfolio-based learning environment?
• What relationships are found between approaches to learning and assessment preferences?
Method
• Participants– First-year professional Bachelor’s degree students
studying Office Management
– During the course ‘Intercultural communication and training’
– Pre- (N=169) and post- (N=150) test
Method
• Research instruments– Approaches to learning
• Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001)
– Assessment preferences• Assessment Preferences Inventory
(Birenbaum, 1994)
Method
R-SPQ-2F API
Deep approach Student participation in exams
Surface approach Tasks that require higher order thinking
New modes of assessment
Permanent evaluation
Teacher driven preparation of exams
Method
• Procedure– Pre- and post-test design
– Instruction• Incorporation of constructivist design principles• Lectures
– Portfolio assessment• Formative function• Summative function
Results
• Do students’ approaches to learning change in a portfolio-based learning environment?
• Paired samples t-test
M SD t Df p
Deep PrePost
2.572.50
0.600.55
-1.486 136 0.140
Surface PrePost
2.542.69
0.650.65
3.546 136 0.001
Results
• Do students’ assessment preferences change in a portfolio-based learning environment?
• Paired samples t-test
Results
M SD t Df p
Teacher-driven
PrePost
4.534.44
0.540.65
-1.669 137 0.097
Student participation
PrePost
3.593.47
0.600.61
-2.461 137 0.015
Permanent PrePost
3.393.26
0.640.66
-2.624 137 0.010
New modes PrePost
3.032.99
0.960.95
-0.573 137 0.567
Higher orderthinking
PrePost
2.962.88
0.550.58
-1.950 137 0.053
Results
• What relationships are found between approaches to learning and assessment preferences?
• Correlational analyses
Results
• Deep approach to learning• permanent evaluation
rpre-test = 0.259 and rpost-test = 0.315
• tasks that require higher order thinkingrpre-test = 0.297 and rpost-test = 0.259
• student participation in examsrpre-test = 0.185
• new modes of assessmentrpost-test = 0.247
Conclusion
• Portfolio-based learning environment– Increasing surface approaches to learning– Decreasing assessment preferences
• Student participation• Permanent evaluation• Portfolio assessment
– Deep approach to learning ~ preference for tasks that require higher order thinking, permanent evaluation and new modes of assessment
Suggestions further research
• Clarifying students’ (negative) experiences
• Various forms of portfolio assessment
• Duration
• Control group
