Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Learning Environments Research
Erschienen in: Learning Environments Research 2/2008

01.09.2008 | Original Paper

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

verfasst von: Katrien Struyven, Filip Dochy, Steven Janssens, Sarah Gielen

Erschienen in: Learning Environments Research | Ausgabe 2/2008

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

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 assessment 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 lecture-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.
Nächster Artikel Classroom learning experiences and students’ perceptions of quality of school life

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
Anaya, G. (1996). College experiences and student learning: The influence of active learning, college environments 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-face instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 197–211.
Ben-Ari, R., & Eliassy, L. (2003). The differential effects of the learning environment on student achievement motivation: A comparison between frontal and complex instruction strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(2), 143–165.CrossRef
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRef
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 prior knowledge: 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.CrossRef
Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: Procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 605–615.CrossRef
Chambers, E. (1992). Work-load and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 141–154.CrossRef
Chisholm, M. A., Dehoney, J., & Poirier, S. (1996). Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted instructional program in an advanced pharmacotherapeutics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 6(4), 365–369.
Clifford, V. A. (1999). The development of autonomous learners in a university setting. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 115–128.CrossRef
Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501–512.CrossRef
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 and standards (pp. 141–170). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRef
De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 249–266.CrossRef
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, present and 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 of freshman about instruction. Journal of curriculum studies, 32(3), 421–444.CrossRef
Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment: Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22, 201–204.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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 on Learning and Instruction, Belgium, Leuven.
Hayward, L. M., & Cairns, M. A. (2001). Allied health students’ perceptions of and experiences with internet-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 to empower students. Reference Librarian, 51–52, 105–120.
Janssens, S., Boes, W., & Wante, D. (2001). Portfolio: een instrument voor toetsing en begeleiding [Portfolio: 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.CrossRef
Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 205–221.CrossRef
Kember, D. (2003). To control or not to control: The question of whether experimental designs are appropriate for evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 89–101.CrossRef
Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.CrossRef
Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2003). Adult students’ perceptions of good teaching as a function of their conceptions of learning—Part 1. Influencing the development of self-determination. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(2), 240–251.CrossRef
Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2004). Adult students’ perceptions of good teaching as a function of their conceptions of learning—Part 2. Implications for the evaluation of teaching. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(1), 81–97.CrossRef
Kember, D., & Wong, A. (2000). Implications for evaluation from a study of students’ perceptions of good and poor teaching. Higher Education, 40(1), 69–97.CrossRef
Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660.CrossRef
Liow, S. R., Betts, M., & Kok Leong Lit, J. (1993). Course design in higher education: A study of teaching methods and educational objectives. Studies in Higher Education, 18(1), 65–79.CrossRef
Maguire, S., Evans, S. E., & Dyas, L. (2001). Approaches to learning: A study of first-year geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25(1), 95–107.CrossRef
Mansfield, B. (1989). Teaching social studies: Learning from past experiences. History and Social Science Teacher, 24(2), 87–88.
Marcel, K. W. (2003). Online advanced placement courses: Experiences of rural and low-income high school students: WCALO special studies. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (Eric Document Reproduction Service, No. ED478377).
McNaughton, K., & Krentz, C. (2000). Reflections on constructivist practices in early childhood teacher education. 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. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Incorporation.
Michel, S. (2001). What do they really think? Assessing student and faculty perspectives of a Web-based tutorial to library research. College and Research Libraries, 62(4), 317–332.
O’Leary, S., Diepenhorst, L., Churley-Strom, R., & Magrane, D. (2005). Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193(5), 1848–1851.CrossRef
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance and teacher education applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35–66.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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 experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.CrossRef
Richardson, D. (1997). Student perceptions and learning outcomes of computer-assisted versus traditional instruction in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 18(1), S55–S58.
Salamonson, Y., & Lantz, J. (2005). Factors influencing nursing students’ preference for a hybrid format delivery in a pathophysiology course. Nurse Education Today, 25(1), 9–16.CrossRef
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). ‘But is it fair?’: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349–371.CrossRef
Schmidt, K. (2002). Classroom action research: A case study assessing students’ perceptions and learning outcomes of classroom teaching versus on-line teaching. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1), 45–59.
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 and standards (pp. 119–140). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRef
Segers M., Dochy F., & Cascallar E. (Eds.). (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: The influence on students’ perceptions of the assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 223–242.CrossRef
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 its effects 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 to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.CrossRef
Sobral, D. T. (1995). The problem-based learning approach as an enhancement factor of personal meaningfulness of learning. Higher Education, 29(1), 93–101.CrossRef
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341.CrossRef
Struyven, K., Sierens, E., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Groot worden: De ontwikkeling van baby tot adolescent [Growing: The development from baby to adolescent] (Course book for prospective teachers). 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.CrossRef
Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 195–199.CrossRef
Tillema, H., & Smith, K. (2000). Learning from portfolios: Differential use of feedback in portfolio construction. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 193–210.CrossRef
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 qualities and standards (pp. 55–88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRef
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251–266.CrossRef
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.CrossRef
Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–292.CrossRef
Van Rossum, E. J., & Taylor, I. P. (1987, April). The relationship between conceptions of learning and good teaching: A scheme of cognitive development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Vermetten, Y., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12(3), 263–284.CrossRef
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 149–171.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.CrossRef
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Constructivism as a scientific method. Scientific Reasoning Research Institute Newsletter, 3(2), 8–9.
Waters, L., & Johnston, C. (2004). Web-delivered, problem-based learning in organisational behaviour: A new form of CAOS. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 413–431.CrossRef
Welker, J., & Berardino, L. (2005). Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 33–55.CrossRef
White, C. (1996). Merging technology and constructivism in teacher education. Teacher Education and Practice, 12(1), 62–70.
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 learning environment preferences. Higher Education, 45(4), 503–523.CrossRef
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101.CrossRef
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.CrossRef
Woo, M. A., & Kimmick, J. V. (2000). Comparison of Internet versus lecture instructional methods for teaching nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16(3), 132–139.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions
verfasst von
Katrien Struyven
Filip Dochy
Steven Janssens
Sarah Gielen
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2008
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Learning Environments Research / Ausgabe 2/2008
Print ISSN: 1387-1579
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1855
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9041-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2008

Learning Environments Research 2/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Student activity and learning outcomes in a virtual learning environment

Original Paper

A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style and self-efficacy

Original Paper

Tool use in open learning environments: In search of learner-related determinants

Original Paper

Classroom learning experiences and students’ perceptions of quality of school life

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise