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
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Learning Environments Research
Erschienen in: Learning Environments Research 1/2016

19.07.2015 | Original Paper

Student-centred learning environments: an investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning

verfasst von: Marlies Baeten, Filip Dochy, Katrien Struyven, Emmeline Parmentier, Anne Vanderbruggen

Erschienen in: Learning Environments Research | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The use of student-centred learning environments in education has increased. This study investigated student teachers’ instructional preferences for these learning environments and how these preferences are related to their approaches to learning. Participants were professional Bachelor students in teacher education. Instructional preferences and approaches to learning were measured by means of questionnaires. Results showed that most students preferred teacher direction, cooperative learning and knowledge construction, and adopted a deep approach. Moreover, significant correlations were found between approaches to learning and instructional preferences. Students adopting a deep approach preferred knowledge construction and cooperative learning, while students adopting a surface approach had a preference for teacher direction and passive learning.
Vorheriger Artikel Development and validation of a Supportive Learning Environment for Expertise Development Questionnaire (SLEED-Q)
Nächster Artikel Pre-adolescents’ representations of multiple attachment relationships: the role of perceived teacher interpersonal behaviour

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
Fußnoten
1
In comparison to the population, our sample contained slightly more female students (population = 70.23 %) and students taking the lower-secondary programme (population = 49.34 %), and less students taking the pre-primary (population = 20.56 %) and primary programme (population = 30.10 %).
 
Literatur
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P., Aldrich, N., & Tenenbaum, H. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.CrossRef
Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2012). Enhancing students’ approaches to learning: The added value of gradually implementing case-based learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 315–336.CrossRef
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.CrossRef
Beausaert, S. A. J., Segers, M. S. R., & Wiltink, D. P. A. (2013). The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: The student perspective. Educational Research, 55(1), 1–15.CrossRef
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764.CrossRef
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.CrossRef
Bonwell, C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalising a traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 31–44.CrossRef
Bostock, S. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 225–240.CrossRef
Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2004). Using the student learning framework to explore the variation in academic performance of European business students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(1), 67–78.CrossRef
Campbell, J., Brownlee, J., & Smith, D. (1996). The differential impact of teachers’ approaches to teaching on secondary students’ approaches to learning. Education Research and Perspectives, 23(2), 95–111.
Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 241–250.CrossRef
Chang, C., & Chang, Y. (2010). College science students’ perception gaps in preferred-actual learning environment in a reformed introductory earth science course in Taiwan. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(2), 187–203.CrossRef
Chung, J. (1991). Collaborative learning strategies: The design of instructional environments for the emerging new school. Educational Technology, 31(6), 15–22.
Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537–550.CrossRef
De Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 33–43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
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
Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499–567.CrossRef
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Van den Bossche, P. (2002). Studentgericht onderwijs & probleemgestuurd onderwijs: Betekenis, achtergronden en effecten [Student-centred education & problem-based education: Significance, background and effects]. Utrecht: Lemma.
Drew, S. (2001). Perceptions of what helps learn and develop in education. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 309–331.CrossRef
Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Léonard, R., & Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105–117.CrossRef
Entwistle, N. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22(3), 201–204.CrossRef
Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 315–345.CrossRef
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2002). Occassional report 1: Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching–learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings. Coventry and Durham: ETL Project, Universities of Edinburgh.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194.CrossRef
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1993, April). Approaches to studying and preferences for teaching in higher education. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Ertmer, P., Newby, T., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719–752.CrossRef
Fung, L., & Chow, L. (2002). Congruence of student teachers’ pedagogical images and actual classroom practices. Educational Research, 44(3), 313–321.CrossRef
Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36, 431–443.CrossRef
Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94–99.
Hativa, N., & Birenbaum, M. (2000). Who prefers what? Disciplinary differences in students’ preferred approaches to teaching and learning styles. Research in Higher Education, 41(2), 209–236.CrossRef
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRef
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRef
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37.CrossRef
Järvelä, S., & Niemivirta, M. (1999). The changes in learning theory and the topicality of the recent research on motivation. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1, 57–65.CrossRef
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRef
Lea, S., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond educational bulimia? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.CrossRef
Loyens, S., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 351–357.CrossRef
Loyens, S., & Rikers, R. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 361–381). New York: Routledge.
Loyens, S., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2007a). Students’ conceptions of distinct constructivist assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 179–199.CrossRef
Loyens, S., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2007b). The impact of students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and drop-out. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 581–602.CrossRef
Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2007). New learning design in distance education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1), 81–93.CrossRef
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRef
Mayo, J. (2002). Case-based instruction: A technique for increasing conceptual application in introductory psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 65–74.CrossRef
Mayo, J. (2004). Using case-based instruction to bridge the gap between theory and practice in psychology of adjustment. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17, 137–146.CrossRef
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 67–93.CrossRef
Papinczak, T. (2009). Are deep strategic learners better suited to PBL? A preliminary study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 337–353.CrossRef
Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching–learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 269–282.CrossRef
Pratt, S. (2008). Complex constructivism: Rethinking the power dynamics of “understanding”. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 6(1), 113–132.
Renkl, A. (2009). Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science, 37, 495–498.CrossRef
Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional Science, 27, 355–371.
Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Struyven, K., Gielen, S., & Sierens, E. (2006). Educating for learning-focused teaching in teacher training: The need to link learning content with practice experiences within an inductive approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 874–897.CrossRef
Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 381–389.
Smith, S., & Miller, R. (2005). Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 43–53.CrossRef
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2010). Teach as you preach: The effects of student-centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’ approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 43–64.CrossRef
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279–294.CrossRef
Suebnukarn, S., & Haddawy, P. (2006). A Bayesian approach to generating tutorial hints in a collaborative medical problem-based learning system. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 38, 5–14.CrossRef
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?. New York: Routledge.
Torenbeek, M., Jansen, E., & Hofman, A. (2011). The relationship between first-year achievement and the pedagogical-didactical fit between secondary school and university. Educational Studies, 37(5), 557–568.CrossRef
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.CrossRef
Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357–442.CrossRef
Van Petegem, P., Donche, V., & Vanhoof, J. (2005). Relating pre-service teacher’s approaches to learning and preferences for constructivist learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 8, 309–332.CrossRef
Vermetten, Y., Vermunt, J., & Lodewijks, H. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12, 263–284.CrossRef
Vermunt, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.CrossRef
Wierstra, R., Kanselaar, G., van der Linden, J., Lodewijks, H., & Vermunt, J. (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 and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Student-centred learning environments: an investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning
verfasst von
Marlies Baeten
Filip Dochy
Katrien Struyven
Emmeline Parmentier
Anne Vanderbruggen
Publikationsdatum
19.07.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Learning Environments Research / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1387-1579
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1855
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9190-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Learning Environments Research 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Relationships between school climate and adolescent students’ self-reports of ethnic and moral identity

Original Paper

Learning English as a second language at the university level in Jordan: motivation, self-regulation and learning environment perceptions

Original Paper

Development and validation of a Supportive Learning Environment for Expertise Development Questionnaire (SLEED-Q)

Original Paper

Pre-adolescents’ representations of multiple attachment relationships: the role of perceived teacher interpersonal behaviour

Original Paper

Student perceptions of the cell biology laboratory learning environment in four undergraduate science courses in Spain

Original Paper

Designing innovative learning environments to foster communities of learners for students in initial vocational education

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise