Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning at university level

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the use of quantitative and qualitative measures of university student learning during teaching in psychiatry. Concept mapping, pre-and post test scores and performance in written assignments were used to measure the quality of change in personal understanding and to show the ways that the knowledge-targets of the course were achieved. The data show that: (1) Concept mapping can be used to explore personal understanding because it facilitates discrete statements of meaning. (2) These personal statements can be compared through time to assess change. (3) Specific criteria can be used to measure the quality of the change from one statement to another so that the different qualities of change that occur can be made-visible in the course of teaching. The approach is discussed in the broader context of learning theory and teaching practice. We show in particular, that prior-knowledge is an important determinant of learning because it affects the sense that can be made of taught material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanessan, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University: What the student does. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The concept map book. London: BBC Worldwide Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles and approaches within higher education: Analytic abstractions, everyday experience. In R. J. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 103–136). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual basis of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., Meyer, J. H. F., & Tait, H. (1991). Student failure: disintegrated perceptions of studying and the learning environment. Higher Education, 21, 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding: mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994). Approaches to studying and preferences for teaching in higher education. Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development, 14, 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K. M. (2000). Overview of knowledge mapping. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, D. B. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training, 48, 79–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2007). Using concept mapping to make concrete measures of learning quality in higher education. Proceedings of the European Learning Styles Conference, Dublin, Ireland, June 11–14, 2007.

  • Hay, D. B., Kehoe, C., Miquel, M. E., Kinchin, I. M., Hatzapinagos, S., Keevil, S. F., & Lygo-Baker, S. (in press). Measuring the quality of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.

  • Hay, D. B., Kinchin, I. M., & Lygo-Baker, S. (in press). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3).

  • Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, P. (1998). From practice to theory. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: Lifelong learning and the learning society, vol. 1. London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (1998). The theory and practice of learning. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: another approach to learning? Higher Education, 31, 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M., & Alias, M. (2005). Exploiting variations in concept mapping morphology as a lesson planning tool for trainee teachers in higher education. Journal of In-service Education, 31, 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 33(1), 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M., Lygo-Baker, S., & Hay, D. B. (in press). Universities as centers of non-learning. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1).

  • Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards and applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 103–136). London: J. Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauirillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (second ed.). London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines. (Occasional Report 4, Enhancing Teaching and learning environments in undergraduate courses, Edinburgh; ETL Project).

  • Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2005). Overcoming barriers to student understanding. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1997). Meaningful learning in science; the human constructivist perspective. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning (pp. 405–447). Orlando: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, G. (2002). Developing teaching and learning in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning creating and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahaw: New Jersey & London’ Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Symington, D. J. (1982). Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 43, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in higher education. London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheja, M. (2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase: Student’s perceptions of their study situation. Higher Education, 52, 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported here was funded by a grant for the research of pedagogy from the Society for Educational Studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching (KILT), Kings College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK

    David B. Hay & Ian M. Kinchin

  2. The Institute of Psychiatry (IOP), De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK

    Harvey Wells

Authors
  1. David B. Hay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harvey Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian M. Kinchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Hay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hay, D.B., Wells, H. & Kinchin, I.M. Quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning at university level. High Educ 56, 221–239 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9099-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9099-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation